Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans

AGENCY:

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION:

Proposed rule with request for public comment.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) is proposing to establish 12 CFR 1041, which would contain regulations creating consumer protections for certain consumer credit products. The proposed regulations would cover payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before October 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2016-0025 or RIN 3170-AA40, by any of the following methods:

• Email: FederalRegisterComments@cfpb.gov. Include Docket No. CFPB-2016-0025 or RIN 3170-AA40 in the subject line of the email.
• Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

Instructions: All submissions should include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov . In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning (202) 435-7275.

All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eleanor Blume, Sarita Frattaroli, Casey Jennings, Sandeep Vaheesan, Steve Wrone, Counsels; Daniel C. Brown, Mark Morelli, Michael G. Silver, Laura B. Stack, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

The Bureau is issuing this notice to propose consumer protections for payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain high-cost installment loans (collectively “covered loans”). Covered loans are typically used by consumers who are living paycheck to paycheck, have little to no access to other credit products, and seek funds to meet recurring or one-time expenses. The Bureau has conducted extensive research on these products, in addition to several years of outreach and review of the available literature. The Bureau is proposing to issue regulations primarily pursuant to authority under section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) to identify and prevent unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. The Bureau is also using authorities under section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Act to prescribe rules and make exemptions from such rules as is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of the consumer Federal consumer financial laws, section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank Act to facilitate supervision of certain non-bank financial service providers, and section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act to require disclosures to convey the costs, benefits, and risks of particular consumer financial products or services.

The Bureau is concerned that lenders that make covered loans have developed business models that deviate substantially from the practices in other credit markets by failing to assess consumers' ability to repay their loans and by engaging in harmful practices in the course of seeking to withdraw payments from consumers' accounts. The Bureau believes that there may be a high likelihood of consumer harm in connection with these covered loans because many consumers struggle to repay their loans. In particular, many consumers who take out covered loans appear to lack the ability to repay them and face one of three options when an unaffordable loan payment is due: take out additional covered loans, default on the covered loan, or make the payment on the covered loan and fail to meet other major financial obligations or basic living expenses. Many lenders may seek to obtain repayment of covered loans directly from consumers' accounts. The Bureau is concerned that consumers may be subject to multiple fees and other harms when lenders make repeated unsuccessful attempts to withdraw funds from consumers' accounts.

A. Scope of the Proposed Rule

The Bureau's proposal would apply to two types of covered loans. First, it would apply to short-term loans that have terms of 45 days or less, including typical 14-day and 30-day payday loans, as well as short-term vehicle title loans that are usually made for 30-day terms. Second, the proposal would apply to longer-term loans with terms of more than 45 days that have (1) a total cost of credit that exceeds 36 percent; and (2) either a lien or other security interest in the consumer's vehicle or a form of “leveraged payment mechanism” that gives the lender a right to initiate transfers from the consumer's account or to obtain payment through a payroll deduction or other direct access to the consumer's paycheck. Included among covered longer-term loans is a subcategory loans with a balloon payment, which require the consumer to pay all of the principal in a single payment or make at least one payment that is more than twice as large as any other payment.

The Bureau is proposing to exclude several types of consumer credit from the scope of the proposal, including: (1) Loans extended solely to finance the purchase of a car or other consumer good in which the good secures the loan; (2) home mortgages and other loans secured by real property or a dwelling if recorded or perfected; (3) credit cards; (4) student loans; (5) non-recourse pawn loans; and (6) overdraft services and lines of credit.

B. Proposed Ability-to-Repay Requirements and Alternative Requirements for Covered Short-Term Loans

The proposed rule would identify it as an abusive and unfair practice for a lender to make a covered short-term loan without reasonably determining that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan. The proposed rule would prescribe requirements to prevent the practice. A lender, before making a covered short-term loan, would have to make a reasonable determination that the consumer would be able to make the payments on the loan and be able to meet the consumer's other major financial obligations and basic living expenses without needing to reborrow over the ensuing 30 days. Specifically, a lender would have to:

• Verify the consumer's net income;
• verify the consumer's debt obligations using a national consumer report and a consumer report from a “registered information system” as described below;
• verify the consumer's housing costs or use a reliable method of estimating a consumer's housing expense based on the housing expenses of similarly situated consumers;
• forecast a reasonable amount of basic living expenses for the consumer—expenditures (other than debt obligations and housing costs) necessary for a consumer to maintain the consumer's health, welfare, and ability to produce income;
• project the consumer's net income, debt obligations, and housing costs for a period of time based on the term of the loan; and
• determine the consumer's ability to repay the loan based on the lender's projections of the consumer's income, debt obligations, and housing costs and forecast of basic living expenses for the consumer.

A lender would also have to make, under certain circumstances, additional assumptions or presumptions when evaluating a consumer's ability to repay a covered short-term loan. The proposal would specify certain assumptions for determining the consumer's ability to repay a line of credit that is a covered short-term loan. In addition, if a consumer seeks a covered short-term loan within 30 days of a covered short-term loan or a covered longer-term loan with a balloon payment, a lender generally would be required to presume that the consumer is not able to afford the new loan. A lender would be able to overcome the presumption of unaffordability for a new covered short-term loan only if it could document a sufficient improvement in the consumer's financial capacity. Furthermore, a lender would be prohibited from making a covered short-term loan to a consumer who has already taken out three covered short-term loans within 30 days of each other.

A lender would also be allowed to make a covered short-term loan, without making an ability-to-repay determination, so long as the loan satisfies certain prescribed terms and the lender confirms that the consumer met specified borrowing history conditions and provides required disclosures to the consumer. Among other conditions, a lender would be allowed to make up to three covered short-term loans in short succession, provided that the first loan has a principal amount no larger than $500, the second loan has a principal amount at least one-third smaller than the principal amount on the first loan, and the third loan has a principal amount at least two-thirds smaller than the principal amount on the first loan. In addition, a lender would not be allowed to make a covered short-term loan under the alternative requirements if it would result in the consumer having more than six covered short-term loans during a consecutive 12-month period or being in debt for more than 90 days on covered short-term loans during a consecutive 12-month period. A lender would not be permitted to take vehicle security in connection with these loans.

C. Proposed Ability-to-Repay Requirements and Alternative Requirements for Covered Longer-Term Loans

The proposed rule would identify it as an abusive and unfair practice for a lender to make a covered longer-term loan without reasonably determining that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan. The proposed rule would prescribe requirements to prevent the practice. A lender, before making a covered longer-term loan, would have to make a reasonable determination that the consumer has the ability to make all required payments as scheduled. The proposed ability-to-repay requirements for covered longer-term loans closely track the proposed requirements for covered short-term loans with an added requirement that the lender, in assessing the consumer's ability to repay a longer term loan, reasonably account for the possibility of volatility in the consumer's income, obligations, or basic living expenses during the term of the loan.

A lender would also have to make, under certain circumstances, additional assumptions or presumptions when evaluating a consumer's ability to repay a covered longer-term loan. The proposal would specify certain assumptions for determining the consumer's ability to repay a line of credit that is a covered longer-term loan. In addition, if a consumer seeks a covered longer-term loan within 30 days of a covered short-term loan or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan, the lender would, under certain circumstances, be required to presume that the consumer is not able to afford a new loan. A presumption of unaffordability also generally would apply if the consumer has shown or expressed difficulty in repaying other outstanding covered or non-covered loans made by the same lender or its affiliate. A lender would be able to overcome the presumption of unaffordability for a new covered longer-term loan only if it could document a sufficient improvement in the consumer's financial capacity.

A lender would also be permitted to make a covered longer-term loan without having to satisfy the ability-to-repay requirements by making loans under a conditional exemption modeled on the National Credit Union Administration's (NCUA) Payday Alternative Loan (PAL) program. Among other conditions, a covered longer-term loan under this exemption would be required to have a principal amount of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000, fully amortizing payments, and a term of at least 46 days but not longer than six months. In addition, loans made under this exemption could not have an interest rate more that is more than the interest rate that is permitted for Federal credit unions to charge under the PAL regulations and an application fee of more than $20.

A lender would also be permitted to make a covered longer-term loan, without having to satisfy the ability-to-repay requirements, so long as the covered longer-term loan meets certain structural conditions. Among other conditions, a covered longer-term loan under this exemption would be required to have fully amortizing payments and a term of at least 46 days but not longer than 24 months. In addition, to qualify for this conditional exemption, a loan must carry a modified total cost of credit of less than or equal to an annual rate of 36 percent, from which the lender could exclude a single origination fee that is no more than $50 or that is reasonably proportionate to the lender's costs of underwriting. The projected annual default rate on all loans made pursuant to this conditional exemption must not exceed 5 percent. The lender would have to refund all of the origination fees paid by all borrowers in any year in which the annual default rate of 5 percent is exceeded.

D. Proposed Payments Practices Rules

The proposed rule would identify it as an abusive and unfair practice for a lender to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after the lender's second consecutive attempt to withdraw payment from the account has failed due to a lack of sufficient funds, unless the lender obtains from the consumer a new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account. This prohibition on further withdrawal attempts would apply whether the two failed attempts are initiated through a single payment channel or different channels, such as the automated clearinghouse system and the check network. The proposed rule would require that lenders provide notice to consumers when the prohibition has been triggered and follow certain procedures in obtaining new authorizations.

In addition to the requirements related to the prohibition on further payment withdrawal attempts, a lender would be required to provide a written notice at least three business days before each attempt to withdraw payment for a covered loan from a consumer's checking, savings, or prepaid account. The notice would contain key information about the upcoming payment attempt, and, if applicable, alert the consumer to unusual payment attempts. A lender would be permitted to provide electronic notices so long as the consumer consents to electronic communications.

E. Additional Requirements

The Bureau is proposing to require lenders to furnish to registered information systems basic information for most covered loans at origination, any updates to that information over the life of the loan, and certain information when the loan ceases to be outstanding. The registered information systems would have to meet certain eligibility criteria prescribed in the proposed rule. The Bureau is proposing a sequential process that it believes would ensure that information systems would be registered and lenders ready to furnish at the time the furnishing obligation in the proposed rule would take effect. For most covered loans, registered information systems would provide a reasonably comprehensive record of a consumer's recent and current borrowing. Before making most covered loans, a lender would be required to obtain and review a consumer report from a registered information system.

A lender would be required to establish and follow a compliance program and retain certain records. A lender would be required to develop and follow written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the requirements in this proposal. Furthermore, a lender would be required to retain the loan agreement and documentation obtained for a covered loan, and electronic records in tabular format regarding origination calculations and determinations for a covered loan, for a consumer who qualifies for an exception to or overcomes a presumption of unaffordability for a covered loan, and regarding loan type and terms. The proposed rule also would include an anti-evasion clause.

F. Effective Date

The Bureau is proposing that, in general, the final rule would become effective 15 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Bureau is proposing that certain provisions necessary to implement the consumer reporting components of the proposal would become effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to facilitate an orderly implementation process.

II. Background

A. Introduction

For most consumers, credit provides a means of purchasing goods or services and spreading the cost of repayment over time. This is true of the three largest consumer credit markets: The market for mortgages ($9.99 trillion in outstanding balances), for student loans ($1.3 trillion), and for auto loans ($1 trillion). This is also one way in which certain types of open-end credit—including home equity loans ($0.14 trillion) and lines of credit ($0.51 trillion)—and at least some credit cards and revolving credit ($0.9 trillion)—can be used.

Consumers living paycheck to paycheck and with little to no savings have also used credit as a means of coping with shortfalls. These shortfalls can arise from mismatched timing between income and expenses, misaligned cash flows, income volatility, unexpected expenses or income shocks, or expenses that simply exceed income. Whatever the cause of the shortfall, consumers in these situations sometimes seek what may broadly be termed a “liquidity loan.” There are a variety of loans and products that consumers use for these purposes including credit cards, deposit account overdraft, pawn loans, payday loans, vehicle title loans, and installment loans.

Credit cards and deposit account overdraft services are each already subject to specific Federal consumer protection regulations and requirements. The Bureau generally considers these markets to be outside the scope of this rulemaking as discussed further below. The Bureau is also separately engaged in research and evaluation of potential rulemaking actions on deposit account overdraft. Another liquidity option—pawn—generally involves non-recourse loans made against the value of whatever item a consumer chooses to give the lender in return for the funds. The consumer has the option to either repay the loan or permit the pawnbroker to retain and sell the pawned property at the end of the loan term, relieving the borrower from any additional financial obligation. This feature distinguishes pawn loans from most other types of liquidity loans. The Bureau is proposing to exclude non-recourse possessory pawn loans, as described in proposed § 1041.3(e)(5), from the scope of this rulemaking.

This rulemaking is focused on two general categories of liquidity loan products: Short-term loans and certain higher-cost longer-term loans. The largest category of short-term loans are “payday loans,” which are generally required to be repaid in a lump-sum single-payment on receipt of the borrower's next income payment, and short-term vehicle title loans, which are also almost always due in a lump-sum single-payment, typically within 30 days after the loan is made. The second general category consists of certain higher-cost longer-term loans. It includes both what are often referred to as “payday installment loans”—that is, loans that are repaid in multiple installments with each installment typically due on the borrower's payday or regularly-scheduled income payment and with the lender generally having the ability to automatically collect payments from an account into which the income payment is deposited—and vehicle title installment loans. In addition, the latter category includes higher cost, longer-term loans in which the principal is not amortized but is scheduled to be paid off in a large lump sum payment after a series of smaller, often interest-only, payments. Some of these loans are available at storefront locations, others are available on the internet, and some loans are available through multiple delivery channels. This rulemaking is not limited to closed-end loans but includes open-end lines of credit as well. It also includes short-term products and some more traditional installment loans made by some depository institutions and by traditional finance companies.

As described in more detail in part III, the Bureau has been studying these markets for liquidity loans for over four years, gaining insights from a variety of sources. During this time the Bureau has conducted supervisory examinations of a number of payday lenders and enforcement investigations of a number of different types of liquidity lenders, which have given the Bureau insights into the business models and practices of such lenders. Through these processes, and through market monitoring activities, the Bureau also has obtained extensive loan-level data that the Bureau has studied to better understand risks to consumers. The Bureau has published four reports based upon these data, and, concurrently with the issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Bureau is releasing a fifth report. The Bureau has also carefully reviewed the published literature with respect to small-dollar liquidity loans and a number of outside researchers have presented their research at seminars for Bureau staff. In addition, over the course of the past four years the Bureau has engaged in extensive outreach with a variety of stakeholders in both formal and informal settings, including several Bureau field hearings across the country specifically focused on the subject of small-dollar lending, meetings with the Bureau's standing advisory groups, meetings with State and Federal regulators, meetings with consumer advocates, religious groups, and industry trade associations, consultations with Indian tribes, and through a Small Business Review Panel process as described further below.

This Background section provides a brief description of the major components of the markets for both short-term loans and certain higher-cost longer-term loans, describing the product parameters, industry size and structure, lending practices, and business models of each component. It then goes on to describe recent State and Federal regulatory activity in connection with these product markets. Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans and Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans below, provide a more detailed description of consumer experiences with short-term loans and certain higher-cost longer-term loans, describing research about which consumers use the products, why they use the products, and the outcomes they experience as a result of the product structures and industry practices.

B. Single-payment and Other Short-Term Loans

At around the beginning of the twentieth century, concern arose with respect to companies that were responding to liquidity needs by offering to “purchase” a consumer's paycheck in advance of it being paid. These companies charged fees that, if calculated as an annualized interest rate, were as high as 400 percent. To address these concerns, between 1914 and 1943, 34 States enacted a form of the Uniform Small Loan Law, which was a model law developed by the Russell Sage Foundation. That law provided for lender licensing and permitted interest rates of between 2 and 4 percent per month, or 24 to 48 percent per year. Those rates were substantially higher than pre-existing usury limits (which generally capped interest rates at between 6 and 8 percent per year) but were viewed by proponents as “equitable to both borrower and lender.”

New forms of short-term small-dollar lending appeared in several States in the 1990s, starting with check cashing outlets that would hold a customer's personal check for a period of time for a fee before cashing it (“check holding” or “deferred presentment”). Several market factors had converged around the same time. Consumers were using credit cards more frequently for short-term liquidity lending needs, a trend that continues today. Storefront finance companies, described below in part II.C that had provided small loans changed their focus to larger, collateralized products, including vehicle financing and real estate secured loans. At the same time there was substantial consolidation in the storefront installment lending industry. Depository institutions similarly moved away from short-term small-dollar loans.

Around the same time, a number of State legislatures amended their usury laws to allow lending by a broader group of both depository and non-depository lenders by increasing maximum allowable State interest rates or eliminating State usury laws, while other States created usury carve-outs or special rules for short-term loans. The confluence of these trends has led to the development of markets offering what are commonly referred to as payday loans (also known as cash advance loans, deferred deposit, and deferred presentment loans depending on lender and State law terminology), and short-term vehicle title loans that are much shorter in duration than vehicle-secured loans that have traditionally been offered by storefront installment lenders and depository institutions. Although payday loans initially were distributed through storefront retail outlets, they are now also widely available on the internet. Vehicle title loans are typically offered exclusively at storefront retail outlets.

These markets as they have evolved over the last two decades are not strictly segmented. There is substantial overlap between market products and the borrowers who use them. For example, in a 2013 survey, almost 18 percent of U.S. households that had used a payday loan in the prior year had also used a vehicle title loan. There is also an established trend away from “monoline” or single-product lending companies. Thus, for example, a number of large payday lenders also offer vehicle title and installment loans. The following discussion nonetheless provides a description of major product types.

Storefront Payday Loans

The market that has received the greatest attention among policy makers, advocates, and researchers is the market for single-payment payday loans. These payday loans are short-term small-dollar loans generally repayable in a single payment due when the consumer is scheduled to receive a paycheck or other inflow of income (e.g., government benefits). For most borrowers, the loan is due in a single payment on their payday, although State laws with minimum loan terms—seven days for example—or lender practices may affect the loan duration in individual cases. The Bureau refers to these short-term payday loans available at retail locations as “storefront payday loans,” but the requirements for borrowers taking online payday loans are generally similar, as described below. There are now 36 States that either have created a carve-out from their general usury cap for payday loans or have no usury caps on consumer loans. The remaining 14 States and the District of Columbia either ban payday loans or have fee or interest rate caps that payday lenders apparently find too low to sustain their business models. As discussed further below, several of these States previously had authorized payday lending but subsequently changed their laws.

Product definition and regulatory environment. As noted above, payday loans are typically repayable in a single payment on the borrower's next payday. In order to help ensure repayment, in the storefront environment the lender generally holds the borrower's personal check made out to the lender—usually post-dated to the loan due date in the amount of the loan's principal and fees—or the borrower's authorization to electronically debit the funds from her checking account, commonly known as an automated clearing house (ACH) transaction. Payment methods are described in more detail below in part II.D.

Payday loan sizes vary depending on State law limits, individual lender credit models, and borrower demand. Many States set a limit on payday loan size; $500 is a common loan limit although the limits range from $300 to $1,000. In 2013, the Bureau reported that the median loan amount for storefront payday loans was $350, based on supervisory data. This finding is broadly consistent with other studies using data from one or more lenders as well as with self-reported information in surveys of payday borrowers and State regulatory reports.

The fee for a payday loan is generally structured as a percentage or dollar amount per $100 borrowed, rather than a periodic interest rate based on the amount of time the loan is outstanding. Many State laws set a maximum amount for these fees, with 15 percent ($15 per $100 borrowed) being the most common limit. The median storefront payday loan fee is $15 per $100; thus for a $350 loan, the borrower must repay $52.50 in finance charges together with the $350 borrowed for a total repayment amount of $402.50. The annual percentage rate (APR) on a 14-day loan with these terms is 391 percent. For payday borrowers who receive monthly income and thus receive a 30-day or monthly payday loan—many of whom are Social Security recipients —a $15 per $100 charge on a $350 loan for a term of 30 days equates to an APR of about 180 percent. The Bureau has found the median loan term for a storefront payday loan to be 14 days, with an average term of 18.3 days. The longer average loan duration is due to State laws that require minimum loan terms that may extend beyond the borrower's next pay date. Fees and loan amounts are higher for online loans, described in more detail below.

On the loan's due date, the terms of the loan obligate the borrower to repay the loan in full. Although the States that created exceptions to their usury limits for payday lending generally did so on the theory these were short-term loans to which the usual usury rules did not easily apply, in 19 of the States that authorize payday lending the lender is permitted to roll over the loan when it comes due. A rollover occurs when, instead of repaying the loan in full at maturity, the consumer pays only the fees due and the lender agrees to extend the due date. By rolling over, the loan repayment of the principal is extended for another period of time, usually equivalent to the original loan term, in return for the consumer's agreement to pay a new set of fees calculated in the same manner as the initial fees (e.g., 15 percent of the loan principal). The rollover fee is not applied to reduce the loan principal or amortize the loan. As an example, if the consumer borrows $300 with a fee of $45 (calculated as $15 per $100 borrowed), the consumer will owe $345 on the due date, typically 14 days later. On the due date, if the consumer cannot afford to repay the entire $345 due or is otherwise offered the option to roll over the loan, she will pay the lender $45 for another 14 days. On the 28th day, the consumer will owe the original $345 and if she pays the loan in full then, will have paid a total of $390 for the loan.

In some States in which rollovers are permitted they are subject to certain limitations such as a cap on the number of rollovers or requirements that the borrower amortize—repay part of the original loan amount—on the rollover. Other States have no restrictions on rollovers. Specially, seventeen of the States that authorize single-payment payday lending prohibit lenders from rolling over loans and twelve more States impose some rollover limitations. However, in most States where rollovers are prohibited or limited, there is no restriction on the lender immediately making a new loan to the consumer (with new fees) after the consumer has repaid the prior loan. New loans made the same day or “back-to-back” loans effectively replicate a rollover because the borrower remains in debt to the lender on the borrower's next payday. A handful of States have implemented a cooling-off period before a lender may make a new loan. The most common cooling-off period is one day, although some States have longer periods following a specified number of rollovers or back-to-back loans.

Twenty States require payday lenders to offer extended repayment plans to borrowers who encounter difficulty in repaying payday loans. Some States' laws are very general and simply provide that a payday lender may allow additional time for repayment of a loan. Other laws provide more detail about the plans including: When lenders must offer repayment plans; how borrowers may elect to participate in repayment plans; the number and timing of payments; the length of plans; permitted fees for plans; requirements for credit counseling; requirements to report plan payments to a statewide database; cooling-off or “lock-out” periods for new loans after completion of plans; and the consequences of plan defaults. The effects of these various restrictions are discussed further below in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans.

Industry size and structure. There are various estimates as to the number of consumers who use payday loans on an annual basis. One survey found that 2.4 million households (2 percent of U.S. households) used payday loans in 2013. In another survey, 4.2 percent of households reported taking out a payday loan. These surveys referred to payday loans generally, and did not specify whether they were referring to loans made online or at storefront locations. One report estimated the number of individual borrowers, rather than households, was higher at approximately 12 million and included both storefront and online loans. See Market Concerns—Short-term Loans for additional information on borrower characteristics.

There are several ways to gauge the size of the storefront payday loan industry. Typically, the industry has been measured by counting the total dollar value of each loan made during the course of a year, counting each rollover, back-to-back loan or other reborrowing as a new loan that is added to the total. By this metric, one analyst estimated that from 2009 to 2014, storefront payday lending generated approximately $30 billion in new loans per years and that by 2015 the volume had declined to $23.6 billion, although these numbers may include products other than single-payment loans. Alternatively, the industry can be measured by calculating the dollar amount of loan balances outstanding. Given the amount of payday loan reborrowing, which results in the same funds of the lender being used to finance multiple loan originations, the dollar amount of loan balances outstanding may provide a more nuanced sense of the industry's scale. Using this metric, the Bureau estimates that in 2012, storefront payday lenders held approximately $2 billion in outstanding single-payment loans. In 2015, industry revenue (fees paid on storefront payday loans) was an estimated $3.6 billion, representing 15 percent of loan originations.

About ten large firms account for half of all payday storefront locations. Several of these firms are publicly traded companies offering a diversified range of products that also include installment and pawn loans. Other large payday lenders are privately held, and the remaining payday loan stores are owned by smaller regional or local entities. The Bureau estimates there are about 2,400 storefront payday lenders that are small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

There were an estimated 15,766 payday loan stores in 2014 within the 36 States in which storefront payday lending occurs. By way of comparison, there were 14,350 McDonald's fast food outlets in the United States in 2014.

The average number of payday loan stores in a county with a payday loan store is 6.32. The Bureau has analyzed payday loan store locations in States which maintain lists of licensed lenders and found that half of all stores are less than one-third of a mile from another store, and three-quarters are less than a mile from the nearest store. Even the 95th percentile of distances between neighboring stores is only 4.3 miles. Stores tend to be closer together in counties within metropolitan statistical areas (MSA). In non-MSA counties the 75th percentile of distance to the nearest store is still less than one mile, but the 95th percentile is 22.9 miles.

Research and the Bureau's own market outreach indicate that payday loan stores tend to be relatively small with, on average, three full-time equivalent employees. An analysis of loan data from 29 States found that the average store made 3,541 advances in a year. Given rollover and reborrowing rates, a report estimated that the average store served fewer than 500 customers per year.

Marketing, underwriting, and collections practices. Payday loans tend to be marketed as a short-term bridge to cover emergency expenses. For example, one lender suggests that, for consumers who have insufficient funds on hand to meet such an expense or to avoid a penalty fee, late fee, or utility shut-off, a payday loan can “come in handy” and “help tide you over until your next payday.” Some lenders offer new borrowers their initial loans at no fee (“first loan free”) to encourage consumers to try a payday loan. Stores are typically located in high-traffic commuting corridors and near shopping areas where consumers obtain groceries and other staples.

The evidence of price competition among payday lenders is mixed. In their financial reports, publicly traded payday lenders have reported their key competitive factors to be non-price related. For instance, they cite location, customer service, and convenience as some of the primary factors on which payday lenders compete with one another, as well as with other financial service providers. Academic studies have found that, in States with rate caps, loans are almost always made at the maximum rate permitted. Another study likewise found that in States with rate caps, firms lent at the maximum permitted rate, but that lenders operating in multiple States with varying rate caps raise their fees to those caps rather than charging consistent fees company-wide. The study additionally found that in States with no rate caps, different lenders operating in those States charged different rates. The study reviewed four lenders that operate in Texas and observed differences in the cost to borrow $300 per two-week pay period: Two lenders charged $61 in fees, one charged $67, and another charged $91, indicating some level of price variation between lenders (ranging from about $20 to $32 per $100 borrowed).

The application process for a payday loan is relatively simple. For a storefront payday loan, a borrower must generally provide some verification of income (typically a pay stub) and evidence of a personal deposit account. Although a few States impose limited requirements that lenders consider a borrower's ability to repay, storefront payday lenders generally do not consider a borrower's other financial obligations or require collateral (other than the check or electronic debit authorization) for the loan. Most storefront payday lenders do not consider traditional credit reports or credit scores when determining loan eligibility, nor do they report any information about payday loan borrowing history to the nationwide consumer reporting agencies, TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian. From market outreach activities and confidential information gathered in the course of statutory functions, the Bureau is aware that a number of storefront payday lenders obtain data from one or more specialty consumer reporting agencies to check for previous payday loan defaults, identify recent inquiries that suggest an intention to not repay the loan, and perform other due diligence such as identity and deposit account verification. Some storefront payday lenders use analytical models and scoring that attempt to predict likelihood of default. Through market outreach and confidential information gathered in the course of statutory functions, the Bureau is aware that many storefront payday lenders limit their underwriting to first-time borrowers or those returning after an absence.

From market outreach, the Bureau is aware that the specialty consumer reporting agencies contractually require any lender that obtains data to also report data to them, although compliance may vary. Reporting usually occurs on a real-time or same-day basis. Separately, 14 States require lenders to check statewide databases before making each loan in order to ensure that their loans comply with various State restrictions. These States likewise require lenders to report certain lending activity to the database, generally on a real-time or same-day basis. As discussed in more detail above, these State restrictions may include prohibitions on consumers having more than one payday loan at a time, cooling-off periods, or restrictions on the number of loans consumers may take out per year.

Although a consumer is generally required when obtaining a loan to provide a post-dated check or authorization for an electronic debit of the consumer's account which could be presented to the consumer's bank, consumers are in practice strongly encouraged and in some cases required by lenders to return to the store when the loan is due to “redeem” the check. Some lenders give borrowers appointment cards with a date and time to encourage them to return with cash. For example, one major storefront payday lender explained that after loan origination “the customer then makes an appointment to return on a specified due date, typically his or her next payday, to repay the cash advance . . . . Payment is usually made in person, in cash at the center where the cash advance was initiated . . . .”

The Bureau is aware, from confidential information gathered in the course of statutory functions and from market outreach, that lenders routinely make reminder calls to borrowers a few days before loan due dates to encourage borrowers to return to the store. One large lender reported this practice in a public filing. Another major payday lender with a predominantly storefront loan portfolio reported that in 2014, over 90 percent of its payday and installment loans were repaid or renewed in cash; this provides an opportunity for store personnel to solicit borrowers to roll over or reborrow while they visit the store to discuss their loans or make loan payments. The Bureau is aware, from confidential information gathered in the course of statutory functions, that one or more storefront payday lenders have operating policies that specifically state that cash is preferred because only half of their customers' checks would clear if deposited on the loan due dates. One storefront payday lender even requires its borrowers to return to the store to repay. Its Web site states: “All payday loans must be repaid with either cash or money order. Upon payment, we will return your original check to you.”

Encouraging or requiring borrowers to return to the store on the due date provides lenders an opportunity to offer borrowers the option to roll over the loan or, where rollovers are prohibited by State law, to reborrow following repayment or after the expiration of any cooling-off period. Most storefront lenders examined by the Bureau employ monetary incentives that reward employees and store managers for loan volumes. Since as discussed below, a majority of loans result from rollovers of existing loans or reborrowing shortly after loans have been repaid, rollovers and reborrowing contribute substantially to employees' compensation. From confidential information gathered in the course of statutory functions, the Bureau is aware that rollover and reborrowing offers are made when consumers log into their accounts online, during “courtesy calls” made to remind borrowers of upcoming due dates, and when borrowers repay in person at storefront locations. In addition, some lenders train their employees to offer rollovers during courtesy calls even when borrowers responded that they had lost their jobs or suffered pay reductions.

Store personnel often encourage borrowers to roll over their loans or to reborrow, even when consumers have demonstrated an inability to repay their existing loans. In an enforcement action, the Bureau found that one lender maintained training materials that actively directed employees to encourage reborrowing by struggling borrowers. It further found that if a borrower did not repay or pay to roll over the loan on time, store personnel would initiate collections. Store personnel or collectors would then offer the option to take out a new loan to pay off their existing loan, or refinance or extend the loan as a source of relief from the potentially negative outcomes (e.g., lawsuits, continued collections). This “cycle of debt” was depicted graphically as part of “The Loan Process” in the company's new hire training manual.

In addition, though some States require lenders to offer extended repayment plans and some trade associations have designated provision of such plans as a best practice, individual lenders may often be reluctant to offer them. In Colorado, for instance, some payday lenders reported prior to a regulatory change in 2010 that they had implemented practices to restrict borrowers from obtaining the number of loans needed to be eligible for State-mandated extended payment plans under the previous regime or banned borrowers on plans from taking new loans. The Bureau is also aware, from confidential information gathered in the course of statutory functions, that one or more lenders used training manuals that instructed employees not to mention these plans until after employees first offered rollovers, and then only if borrowers specifically asked about the plans. Indeed, details on implementation of the repayment plans that have been designated by two national trade associations for storefront payday lenders as best practices are unclear, and in some cases place a number of limitations on exactly how and when a borrower must request assistance to qualify for these “off-ramps.” For instance, one trade association claiming to represent more than half of all payday loan stores states that as a condition of membership, members must offer an “extended payment plan” but that borrowers must request the plan at least one day prior to the date on which the loan is due, generally in person at the store where the loan was made or otherwise by the same method used to originate the loan. It also states that borrowers must request an extended payment plan at least one day prior to the date on which the loan is due and must return to the store where the loan was made to do so or request the plan by using the same method used to originate the loan. Another trade association claiming over 1,300 members, including both payday lenders and firms that offer non-credit products such as check cashing and money transmission, states that members will provide the option of extended payment plans in the absence of State-mandated plans to customers unable to repay but details of the plans are not available on its Web site.

From confidential information gathered in the course of statutory functions and market outreach, the Bureau is aware that if a borrower fails to return to the store when a loan is due, the lender may attempt to contact the consumer and urge the consumer to make a cash payment before depositing the post-dated check that the consumer had provided at origination or electronically debiting the account. The Bureau is aware, from confidential information gathered in the course of its statutory functions and market outreach, that lenders may take various other actions to try to ensure that a payment will clear before presenting a check or ACH. These efforts may range from storefront lenders calling the borrower's bank to ask if a check of a particular size would clear the account or through the use of software offered by a number of vendors that attempts to model likelihood of repayment (“predictive ACH”). If these attempts are unsuccessful, store personnel at either the storefront level or at a centralized location will then generally engage in collection activity.

Collection activity may involve further in-house attempts to collect from the borrower's bank account. If the first attempt fails, the lender may make subsequent attempts at presentment by splitting payments into smaller amounts in hopes of increasing the likelihood of obtaining at least some funds, a practice for which the Bureau recently took enforcement action against a small-dollar lender. Or, the lender may attempt to present the payment multiple times, a practice that the Bureau has noted in supervisory examinations.

Eventually, the lender may attempt other means of collection. The Bureau is aware of in-house collections activities, either by storefront employees or by employees at a centralized collections division, including calls, letters, and visits to consumers and their workplaces, as well as the selling of debt to third-party collectors. The Bureau observed in its consumer complaint data that from November 2013 through December 2015 approximately 24,000 debt collection complaints had payday loan as the underlying debt. More than 10 percent of the complaints the Bureau has received about debt collection stem from payday loans.

Some payday lenders sue borrowers who fail to repay their loans. A study of small claims court cases filed in Utah from 2005 to 2010 found that 38 percent of cases were attributable to payday loans. A recent news report found that the majority of non-traffic civil cases filed in 14 Utah small claims courts are payday loan collection lawsuits and in one justice court the percentage was as high as 98.8 percent. In 2013, the Bureau entered into a Consent Order with a large national payday and installment lender based, in part, on the filing of flawed court documents in about 14,000 debt collection lawsuits.

Business model. As previously noted, the storefront payday industry has built a distribution model that involves a large number of small retail outlets, each serving a relatively small number of consumers. That implies that the overhead cost on a per consumer basis is relatively high.

Additionally, the loss rates on storefront payday loans—the percentage or amounts of loans that are charged off by the lender as uncollectible—are relatively high. Loss rates on payday loans often are reported on a per-loan basis but, given the frequency of rollovers and renewals, that metric understates the amount of principal lost to borrower defaults. For example, if a lender makes a $100 loan that is rolled over nine times, at which point the consumer defaults, the per-loan default rate would be 10 percent whereas the lender would have in fact lost 100 percent of the amount loaned. In this example, the lender would still have received substantial revenue, as the lender would have collected fees for each rollover prior to default. The Bureau estimates that during the 2011-2012 timeframe, charge-offs (i.e., uncollectible loans defaulted on and never repaid) equaled nearly one-half of the average amount of outstanding loans during the year. In other words, for every $1.00 loaned, only $.50 in principal was eventually repaid. One academic study found loss rates to be even higher.

To sustain these significant costs, the payday lending business model is dependent upon a large volume of reborrowing—that is, rollovers, back-to-back loans, and reborrowing within a short period of paying off a previous loan—by those borrowers who do not default on their first loan. The Bureau's research found that over the course of a year, 90 percent of all loan fees comes from consumers who borrowed seven or more times and 75 percent comes from consumers who borrowed ten or more times. Similarly, when the Bureau identified a cohort of borrowers and tracked them over ten months, the Bureau found that more than two-thirds of all loans were in sequences of at least seven loans, and that over half of all loans were in sequences of ten or more loans. The Bureau defines a sequence as an initial loan plus one or more subsequent loans renewed within a period of time after repayment of the prior loan; a sequence thus captures not only rollovers and back-to-back loans but also re-borrowing that occurs within a short period of time after repayment of a prior loan either at the point at which a State-mandated cooling-off period ends or at the point at which the consumer, having repaid the prior loan, runs out of money.

Other studies are broadly consistent. For example, a 2013 report based on lender data from Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and South Carolina found that 85 percent of loans were made to borrowers with seven or more loans per year, and 62 percent of loans were made to borrowers with 12 or more loans per year. These four States have restrictions on payday loans such as cooling-off periods and limits on rollovers that are enforced by State-regulated databases, as well as voluntary extended repayment plans. An updated report on Florida payday loan usage derived from the State database noted this trend has continued with 83 percent of payday loans in 2015 made to borrowers with seven or more loans and 57 percent of payday loans that same year made to borrowers with 12 or more loans. Other reports have found that over 80 percent of total payday loans and loan volume is due to repeat borrowing within thirty days of a prior loan. One trade association has acknowledged that “[i]n any large, mature payday loan portfolio, loans to repeat borrowers generally constitute between 70 and 90 percent of the portfolio, and for some lenders, even more.”

Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans below discusses the impact of these outcomes for consumers who are unable to repay and either default or reborrow.

Recent regulatory and related industry developments. A number of Federal and State regulatory developments have occurred over the last 15 years as concerns about the effects of payday lending have spread. Regulators have found that the industry has tended to shift to new models and products in response.

Since 2000, it has been clear from commentary added to Regulation Z, that payday loans constitute “credit” under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and that cost of credit disclosures are required to be provided in payday loan transactions, regardless of how State law characterizes payday loan fees.

In 2006, Congress enacted the Military Lending Act (MLA) to address concerns that servicemembers and their families were becoming over-indebted in high-cost forms of credit. The MLA, as implemented by the Department of Defense's regulation, imposes two broad classes of requirements applicable to a creditor. First, the creditor may not impose a military annual percentage rate (MAPR) greater than 36 percent in connection with an extension of consumer credit to a covered borrower. Second, when extending consumer credit, the creditor must satisfy certain other terms and conditions, such as providing certain information, both orally and in a form the borrower can keep, before or at the time the borrower becomes obligated on the transaction or establishes the account, refraining from requiring the borrower to submit to arbitration in the case of a dispute involving the consumer credit, and refraining from charging a penalty fee if the borrower prepays all or part of the consumer credit. In 2007, the Department of Defense issued its initial regulation under the MLA, limiting the Act's application to closed-end loans with a term of 91 days or less in which the amount financed did not exceed $2,000; closed-end vehicle title loans with a term of 181 days or less; and closed-end tax refund anticipation loans. However, the Department found that evasions developed in the market as “the extremely narrow definition of `consumer credit' in the [then-existing rule] permits a creditor to structure its credit products in order to reduce or avoid altogether the obligations of the MLA.”

As a result, effective October 2015 the Department of Defense expanded its definition of covered credit to include open-end credit and longer-term loans so that the MLA protections generally apply to all credit subject to the requirements of Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act, other than certain products excluded by statute. In general, creditors must comply with the new regulations for extensions of credit after October 3, 2016; for credit card accounts, creditors are required to comply with the new rule starting October 3, 2017.

At the State level, the last States to enact legislation authorizing payday lending, Alaska and Michigan, did so in 2005. At least eight States that previously had authorized payday loans have taken steps to restrict or eliminate payday lending. In 2001, North Carolina became the first State that had previously permitted payday loans to adopt an effective ban by allowing the authorizing statute to expire. In 2004, Georgia also enacted a law banning payday lending.

In 2008, the Ohio legislature adopted the Short Term Lender Act with a 28 percent APR cap, including all fees and charges, for short-term loans and repealed the existing Check-Cashing Lender Law that authorized higher rates and fees. In a referendum later that year, Ohioans voted against reinstating the Check-Cashing Lender Law, leaving the 28 percent APR cap and the Short Term Lending Act in effect. After the vote, some payday lenders began offering vehicle title loans. Other lenders continued to offer payday loans utilizing Ohio's Credit Service Organization Act and the Mortgage Loan Act; the latter practice was upheld by the State Supreme Court in 2014.

In 2010, Colorado's legislature banned short-term single-payment balloon loans in favor of longer-term, six-month loans. Colorado's regulatory framework is described in more detail in the discussion of payday installment lending below.

As of July 1, 2010, Arizona effectively prohibited payday lending after the authorizing statute expired and a statewide referendum that would have continued to permit payday lending failed to pass. However, small-dollar lending activity continues in the State. The State financial regulator issued an alert in 2013, in response to complaints about online unlicensed lending, advising consumers and lenders that payday and consumer loans of $1,000 or less are generally subject to a rate of 36 percent per annum and loans in violation of those rates are void. In addition, vehicle title loans continue to be made in Arizona as secondary motor vehicle finance transactions. The number of licensed vehicle title lenders has increased by about 300 percent since the payday lending law expired and now exceeds the number of payday lenders that were licensed prior to the ban.

In 2009, Virginia amended its payday lending law. It extended the minimum loan term to the length of two income periods, added a 45-day cooling-off period after substantial time in debt (the fifth loan in a 180-day period) and a 90-day cooling-off period after completing an extended payment plan, and implemented a database to enforce limits on loan amounts and frequency. The payday law applies to closed-end loans. Virginia has no interest rate regulations or licensure requirements for open-end credit. After the amendments, a number of lenders that were previously licensed as payday lenders in Virginia and that offer closed-end payday loans in other States now operate in Virginia by offering open-end credit without a State license.

Washington and Delaware have restricted repeat borrowing by imposing limits on the number of payday loans consumers may obtain. In 2009, Washington made several changes to its payday lending law. These changes, effective January 1, 2010, include a cap of eight loans per borrower from all lenders in a rolling 12-month period where there had been no previous limit on the number of total loans, an extended repayment plan for any loan, and a database to which that lenders are required to report all payday loans. In 2013, Delaware, a State with no fee restrictions for payday loans, implemented a cap of five payday loans, including rollovers, in any 12-month period. Delaware defines payday loans as loans due within 60 days for amounts up to $1,000. Some Delaware lenders have shifted from payday loans to longer-term installment loans with interest-only payments followed by a final balloon payment of the principal and an interest fee payment—sometimes called a “flexpay” loan.

At least 35 Texas municipalities have adopted local ordinances setting business regulations on payday lending (and vehicle title lending). Some of the ordinances, such as those in Dallas, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio, include requirements such as limits on loan amounts (no more than 20 percent of the borrower's gross annual income for payday loans), limits on the number of rollovers, required amortization of the principal loan amount for repeat loans—usually in 25 percent increments, record retention for at least three years, and a registration requirement. On a statewide basis, there are no Texas laws specifically governing payday lenders or payday loan terms; credit access businesses that act as loan arrangers or broker payday loans (and vehicle title loans) are regulated and subject to licensing, reporting, and requirements to provide consumers with disclosures about repayment and reborrowing rates.

Online Payday and Hybrid Payday Loans

With the growth of the internet, a significant online payday lending industry has developed. Some storefront lenders use the internet as an additional method of originating payday loans in the States in which they are licensed to do business. In addition, there are now a number of lenders offering payday, and what are referred to as “hybrid” payday loans, exclusively through the internet. Hybrid payday loans are structured so that rollovers occur automatically unless the consumer takes affirmative action to pay off the loan, thus effectively creating a series of interest-only payments followed by a final balloon payment of the principal amount and an additional fee. Hybrid loans with automatic rollovers would fall within the category of “covered longer-term loans” under the proposed rule as discussed more fully below.

Industry size, structure, and products. The online payday market size is difficult to measure for a number of reasons. First, many online lenders offer a variety of products including single-payment loans (what the Bureau refers to as payday loans), longer-term installment loans, and hybrid loans; this poses challenges in sizing the portion of these firms' business that is attributable to payday and hybrid loans. Second, many online payday lenders are not publicly traded, resulting in little available financial information about this market segment. Third, many other online payday lenders claim exemption from State lending laws and licensing requirements, stating they are located and operated from other jurisdictions. Consequently, these lenders report less information publicly, whether individually or in aggregate compilations, than lenders holding traditional State licenses. Finally, storefront payday lenders who are also using the online channel generally do not separately report their online originations. Bureau staff's reviews of the largest storefront lenders' Web sites indicate an increased focus in recent years on online loan origination.

With these caveats, a frequently cited industry analyst has estimated that by 2012 online payday loans had grown to generate nearly an equivalent amount of fee revenue as storefront payday loans on roughly 62 percent of the origination volume, about $19 billion, but originations had then declined somewhat to roughly $15.9 billion during 2015. This trend appears consistent with storefront payday loans, as discussed above, and is likely related at least in part to increasing lender migration from short-term into longer-term products. Online payday loan fee revenue has been estimated for 2015 at $3.1 billion, or 19 percent of origination volume. However, these estimates may be both over- and under-inclusive; they may not differentiate precisely between online lenders' short-term and longer-term loans, and they may not account for the online lending activities by storefront payday lenders.

Whatever its precise size, the online industry can broadly be divided into two segments: online lenders licensed in the State in which the borrower resides and lenders that are not licensed in the borrower's State of residence.

The first segment consists largely of storefront lenders with an online channel to complement their storefronts as a means of originating loans, as well as a few online-only payday lenders who lend only to borrowers in States where they have obtained State lending licenses. Because this segment of online lenders is State-licensed, State administrative payday lending reports include this data but generally do not differentiate loans originated online from those originated in storefronts. Accordingly, this portion of the market is included in the market estimates summarized above, and the lenders consider themselves to be subject to, or generally follow, the relevant State laws discussed above.

The second segment consists of lenders that claim exemption from State lending laws. Some of these lenders claim exemption because their loans are made from a physical location outside of the borrower's State of residence, including from an off-shore location outside of the United States. Other lenders claim exemption because they are lending from tribal lands, with such lenders claiming that they are regulated by the sovereign laws of federally recognized Indian tribes. These lenders claim immunity from suit to enforce State or Federal consumer protection laws on the basis of their sovereign status. A frequently cited source of data on this segment of the market is a series of reports using data from a specialty consumer reporting agency serving certain online lenders, most of whom are unlicensed. These data are not representative of the entire online industry, but nonetheless cover a large enough sample (2.5 million borrowers over a period of four years) to be significant. These reports indicate the following concerning this market segment:

• Although the mean and median loan size among the payday borrowers in this data set are only slightly higher than the information reported above for storefront payday loans, the online payday lenders charge higher rates than storefront lenders. As noted above, most of the online lenders reporting this data claim exemption from State laws and do not comply with State rate caps. The median loan fee in this data set is $23.53 per $100 borrowed, compared to $15 per $100 borrowed for storefront payday loans. The mean fee amount is even higher at $26.60 per $100 borrowed. Another study based on a similar dataset from three online payday lenders is generally consistent, putting the range of online payday loan fees at between $18 and $25 per $100 borrowed.

• More than half of the payday loans made by these online lenders are hybrid payday loans. As described above, a hybrid loan involves automatic rollovers with payment of the loan fee until a final balloon payment of the principal and fee. For the hybrid payday loans, the most frequently reported payment amount is 30 percent of principal, implying a finance charge during each pay period of $30 for each $100 borrowed.

• Unlike storefront payday loan borrowers who generally return to the same store to reborrow, the credit reporting data may suggest that online borrowers tend to move from lender to lender. As discussed further below, however, it is difficult to evaluate whether some of this apparent effect is due to online lenders simply not consistently reporting lending activity.

Marketing, underwriting, and collection practices. To acquire customers, online lenders have relied heavily on direct marketing and lead generators. Online lead generators purchase web advertising, usually in the form of banner advertisements or paid search results (the advertisements that appear at the top of an internet search on Google, Bing, or other search engines). When a consumer clicks through on a banner or search advertisement, she is usually prompted to complete a brief form with personal information that will be used to determine the loans for which she may qualify. If a lead generator is involved, the consumer's information becomes a lead that is in turn sold directly to a lender, to a reseller, or to a “lender network” that operates as an auction in which the lead is sold to the highest bidder. A consumer's personal information may be offered to multiple lenders and other vendors as a result of submitting a single form, raising significant privacy and other concerns. In a survey of online payday borrowers, 39 percent reported that their personal or financial information was sold to a third party without their knowledge.

From the Bureau's market outreach activities, it is aware that large payday and small-dollar installment lenders using lead generators for high quality, “first look” or high-bid leads have paid an average cost per new account of between $150 and $200. Indeed, the cost to a lender simply to purchase such leads can be $100 or more. Customer acquisition costs reflect lead purchase prices. One online lender reported its customer acquisition costs to be $297, while in 2015 another spent 25 percent of its total marketing expenditures on customer acquisition, including lead purchases.

Online lenders view fraud (i.e., consumers who mispresent their identity) as a significant risk and also express concerns about “bad faith” borrowing (i.e., consumers with verified identities who borrow without the intent to repay). Consequently, online payday and hybrid lenders attempt to verify the borrower's identity and the existence of a bank account in good standing. Several specialty consumer reporting agencies have evolved primarily to serve the online payday lending market. The Bureau is aware from market outreach that these lenders also generally report loan closure information on a real-time or daily basis to the specialty consumer reporting agencies. In addition, some online lenders report to the Bureau they use nationwide credit report information to evaluate both credit and potential fraud risk associated with first-time borrowers, including recent bankruptcy filings. However, there is evidence that online lenders do not consistently utilize credit report data for every loan, and instead typically check and report data only for new borrowers or those returning after an extended absence from the lender's records.

Typically, proceeds from online payday loans are disbursed electronically to the consumer's bank account. The consumer authorizes the lender to debit her account as payments are due. If the consumer does not agree to authorize electronic debits, lenders generally will not disburse electronically, but instead will require the consumer to wait for a paper loan proceeds check to arrive in the mail. Lenders may also charge higher interest rates or fees to consumers who do not commit to electronic debits.

Unlike storefront lenders that seek to bring consumers back to the stores to make payments, online lenders collect via electronic debits. Online payday lenders, like their storefront counterparts, use various models and software, described above, to predict when an electronic debit is most likely to succeed in withdrawing funds from a borrower's bank account. As discussed further below, the Bureau has observed lenders seeking to collect multiple payments on the same day. Lenders may be dividing the payment amount in half and presenting two debits at once, presumably to reduce the risk of a larger payment being returned for nonsufficient funds. Indeed, the Bureau found that about one-third of presentments by online payday lenders occur on the same day as another request by the same lender. The Bureau also found that split presentments almost always result in either payment of all presentments or return of all presentments (in which event the consumer will likely incur multiple nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees from the bank). The Bureau's study indicates that when an online payday lender's first attempt to obtain a payment from the consumer's account is unsuccessful, it will make a second attempt 75 percent of the time and if that attempt fails the lender will make a third attempt 66 percent of the time. As discussed further at part II.D, the success rate on these subsequent attempts is relatively low, and the cost to consumers may be correspondingly high.

There is limited information on the extent to which online payday lenders that are unable to collect payments through electronic debits resort to other collection tactics. The available evidence indicates, however, that online lenders sustain higher credit losses and risk of fraud than storefront lenders. One lender with publicly available financial information that originated both storefront and online single-payment loans reported in 2014, a 49 percent and 71 percent charge-off rate, respectively, for these loans. Online lenders generally classify as “fraud” both consumers who misrepresented their identity in order to obtain a loan and consumers whose identity is verified but default on the first payment due, which is viewed as reflecting the intent not to repay.

Business model. While online lenders tend to have fewer costs relating to operation of physical facilities than do storefront lenders, as discussed above, they face high costs relating to lead acquisition, loan origination screening to verify applicant identity, and potentially larger losses due to fraud than their storefront competitors.

Accordingly, it is not surprising that online lenders—like their storefront counterparts—are dependent upon repeated reborrowing. Indeed, even at a cost of $25 or $30 per $100 borrowed, a typical single online payday loan would generate fee revenue of under $100, which is not sufficient to cover the typical origination costs discussed above. Consequently, as discussed above, hybrid loans that roll over automatically in the absence of affirmative action by the consumer account for a substantial percentage of online payday business. These products effectively build a number of rollovers into the loan. For example, the Bureau has observed online payday lenders whose loan documents suggest that they are offering a single-payment loan but whose business model is to collect only the finance charges due, roll over the principal, and require consumers to take affirmative steps to notify the lender if consumers want to repay their loans in full rather than allowing them to roll over. The Bureau recently initiated an action against an online lender alleging that it engaged in deceptive practices in connection with such products. In a recent survey conducted of online payday borrowers, 31 percent reported that they had experienced loans with automatic renewals.

As discussed above, a number of online payday lenders claim exemption from State laws and the limitations established under those laws. As reported by a specialty consumer reporting agency with data from that market, more than half of the payday loans for which information is furnished to it are hybrid payday loans with the most common fee being $30 per $100 borrowed, twice the median amount for storefront payday loans.

Similar to associations representing storefront lenders as discussed above, a national trade association representing online lenders includes loan repayment plans as one of its best practices, but does not provide many details in its public material. A trade association that represents tribal online lenders has adopted a set of best practices but they do not address repayment plans.

Single-Payment Vehicle Title Loans

Vehicle title loans—also known as “automobile equity loans”—are another form of liquidity lending permitted in certain States. In a title loan transaction, the borrower must provide identification and usually the title to the vehicle as evidence that the borrower owns the vehicle “free and clear.” Unlike payday loans, there is generally no requirement that the borrower have a bank account, and some lenders do not require a copy of a paystub or other evidence of income. Rather than holding a check or ACH authorization for repayment as with a payday loan, the lender generally retains the vehicle title or some other form of security interest that provides it with the right to repossess the vehicle, which may then be sold, with the proceeds used for repayment.

The lender retains the vehicle title or some other form of security interest during the duration of the loan, while the borrower retains physical possession of the vehicle. In some States the lender files a lien with State officials to record and perfect its interest in the vehicle or the lender may charge a fee for non-filing insurance. In a few States, a clear vehicle title is not required and vehicle title loans may be made as secondary liens against the title or against the borrower's automobile registration. In Georgia, vehicle title loans are made under the State's pawnbroker statute that specifically permits borrowers to pawn vehicle certificates of title. Almost all vehicle title lending is conducted at storefront locations, although some title lending does occur online.

Product definition and regulatory environment. There are two types of vehicle title loans: Single-payment loans and installment loans. Of the 25 States that permit some form of vehicle title lending, seven States permit only single-payment title loans, 13 States allow the loans to be structured as single-payment or installment loans, and five permit only title installment loans. (Installment title loans are discussed in more detail below.) All but three of the States that permit some form of title lending (Arizona, Georgia, and New Hampshire) also permit payday lending.

Single-payment vehicle title loans are typically due in 30-days and operate much like payday loans: The consumer is charged a fixed price per $100 borrowed and when the loan is due the consumer is obligated to repay the full amount of the loan plus the fee but is typically given the opportunity to roll over or reborrow. The Bureau recently studied anonymized data from vehicle title lenders, consisting of nearly 3.5 million loans made to over 400,000 borrowers in 20 States. For single-payment vehicle title loans with a typical duration of 30 days, the median loan amount is $694 with a median APR of 317 percent, and the average loan amount is $959 and the average APR is 291 percent. Two other studies contain similar findings. Vehicle title loans are therefore for larger amounts than typical payday loans but carry similar APRs for similar terms.

Some States that authorize vehicle title loans limit the rates lenders may charge to a percentage or dollar amount per one hundred dollars borrowed, similar to some State payday lending pricing structures. A common fee limit is 25 percent of the loan amount per month, but roughly half of the authorizing States have no restrictions on rates or fees. Some, but not all, States limit the maximum amount that may be borrowed to a fixed dollar amount, a percentage of the borrower's monthly income (50 percent of the borrower's gross monthly income in Illinois), or a percentage of the vehicle's value. Some States limit the initial loan term to one month, but several States authorize rollovers, including automatic rollovers arranged at the time of the original loan. Unlike payday loan regulation, few States require cooling-off periods between loans or optional extended repayment plans for borrowers who cannot repay vehicle title loans. State vehicle title regulations sometimes address default, repossession and related fees; any cure periods prior to and after repossession, whether the lender must refund any surplus after the repossession and sale or disposition of the vehicle, and whether the borrower is liable for any deficiency remaining after sale or disposition. Some States have imposed limited requirements that lenders consider a borrower's ability to repay. For example, both Utah and South Carolina require lenders to consider borrower ability to repay, but this may be accomplished through a borrower affirming that she has provided accurate financial information and has the ability to repay. Nevada requires lenders to consider borrower ability to repay and obtain borrower affirmation of their ability to repay. Missouri requires that lenders consider borrower financial ability to reasonably repay the loan under the loan's contract, but does not specify how lenders may satisfy this requirement.

Industry size and structure. Information about the vehicle title market is more limited than with respect to the payday industry because there are currently no publicly traded vehicle title loan companies, most payday lending companies that offer vehicle title loans are not publicly traded, and less information is generally available from State regulators and other sources. One national survey conducted in June 2013 found that 1.1 million households reported obtaining a vehicle title loan over the preceding 12 months. Another study extrapolating from State regulatory reports estimates that about two million Americans use vehicle title loans annually. In 2014, vehicle title loan originations were estimated at $2.4 billion with revenue estimates of $3 to $5.6 billion. These estimates may not include the full extent of vehicle title loan expansion by payday lenders.

There are approximately 8,000 title loan storefront locations in the United States, about half of which also offer payday loans. Three privately held firms dominate the vehicle title lending market and together account for about 3,200 stores in about 20 States. These lenders are concentrated in the southeastern and southwestern regions of the country. In addition to the large title lenders, smaller vehicle title lenders are estimated to have about 800 storefront locations, and as noted above several companies offer both title loans and payday loans. The Bureau understands that for some firms for which the core business had been payday loans, the volume of vehicle title loan originations now exceeds payday loan originations.

State loan data also show vehicle title loans are growing rapidly. The number of borrowers in Illinois taking vehicle title loans increased 78 percent from 2009 to 2013, the most current year for which data are available. The number of title loans taken out in California increased 178 percent between 2011 and 2014. In Virginia, between 2011 and 2014, the number of motor vehicle title loans made increased by 21 percent while the number of individual consumers taking title loans increased by 25 percent. In addition to the growth in loans made under Virginia's vehicle title law, a series of reports notes that some Virginia title lenders are offering “consumer finance” installment loans without the corresponding consumer protections of the vehicle title lending law and, accounting for about “a quarter of the money loaned in Virginia using automobile titles as collateral.” In Tennessee, the number of licensed vehicle title (title pledge) locations at year-end has been measured yearly since 2006. The number of locations peaked in 2014 at 1,071, 52 percent higher than the 2006 levels. In 2015, the number of locations declined to 965. However, in each year since 2013, the State regulator has reported more licensed locations than existed prior to the State's title lending regulation, the Tennessee Title Pledge Act.

Vehicle title loan storefront locations serve a relatively small number of customers. One study estimates that the average vehicle title loan store made 227 loans per year, not including rollovers. Another study using data from four States and public filings from the largest vehicle title lender estimated that the average vehicle title loan store serves about 300 unique borrowers per year—or slightly more than one unique borrower per business day. The same report estimated that the largest vehicle title lender had 4.2 employees per store. But, as mentioned, a number of large payday firms offer both products from the same storefront and may use the same employees to do so. In addition, small vehicle title lenders are likely to have fewer employees per location than do larger title lenders.

Marketing, underwriting, and collections practices. Vehicle title loans are marketed to appeal to borrowers with impaired credit who seek immediate funds. The largest vehicle title lender described title loans as a “way for consumers to meet their liquidity needs” and described their customers as those who “often . . . have a sudden and unexpected need for cash due to common financial challenges.” Advertisements for vehicle title loans suggest that title loans can be used “to cover unforeseen costs this month . . . .[if] utilities are a little higher than you expected,” if consumers are “in a bind,” for a “short term cash flow” problem, or for “fast cash to deal with an unexpected expense.” Vehicle title lenders advertise quick loan approval “in as little as 15 minutes.” Some lenders offer promotional discounts for the initial loan and bonuses for referrals, for example, a $100 prepaid card for referring friends for vehicle title loans.

The underwriting policies and practices that vehicle title lenders use vary and may depend on such factors as State law requirements and individual lender practices. As noted above, some vehicle title lenders do not require borrowers to provide information about their income and instead rely on the vehicle title and the underlying collateral that may be repossessed and sold in the event the borrower defaults—a practice known as asset-based lending. The largest vehicle title lender stated in 2011 that its underwriting decisions were based entirely on the wholesale value of the vehicle. Other title lenders' Web sites state that proof of income is required, although it is unclear whether employment information is verified or used for underwriting, whether it is used for collections and communication purposes upon default, or for both purposes. The Bureau is aware, from confidential information gathered in the course of its statutory functions, that one or more vehicle title lenders regularly exceed their maximum loan amount guidelines and instruct employees to consider a vehicle's sentimental or use value to the borrower when assessing the amount of funds they will lend.

One large title lender stated that it competes on factors such as location, customer service, and convenience, and also highlights its pricing as a competitive factor. An academic study found evidence of price competition in the vehicle title market, citing the abundance of price-related advertising and evidence that in States with rate caps, such as Tennessee, approximately half of the lenders charged the maximum rate allowed by law, with the other half charging lower rates. However, another report found that like payday lenders, title lenders compete primarily on location, speed, and customer service, gaining customers by increasing the number of locations rather than decreasing their prices.

Loan amounts are typically for less than half the wholesale value of the consumer's vehicle. Low loan-to-value ratios reduce lenders' risk. A survey of title lenders in New Mexico found that the lenders typically lend between 25 and 40 percent of a vehicle's wholesale value. At one large title lender, the weighted average loan-to-value ratio was found to be 26 percent of Black Book retail value. The same lender has two principal operating divisions; one division requires that vehicles have a minimum appraised value greater than $500, but the lender will lend against vehicles with a lower appraised value through another brand.

When a borrower defaults on a vehicle title loan, the lender may repossess the vehicle. The Bureau believes, based on market outreach, that the decision whether to repossess a vehicle will depend on factors such as the amount due, the age and resale value of the vehicle, the costs to locate and repossess the vehicle, and State law requirements to refund any surplus amount remaining after the sale proceeds have been applied to the remaining loan balance. Available information indicates that lenders are unlikely to repossess vehicles they do not expect to sell. The largest vehicle title lender sold 83 percent of the vehicles it repossessed but did not report overall repossession rates. In 2012, its firm-wide gross charge-offs equaled 30 percent of its average outstanding title loan balances. The Bureau is aware of vehicle title lenders engaging in illegal debt collection activities in order to collect amounts claimed to be due under title loan agreements. These practices include altering caller ID information on outgoing calls to borrowers to make it appear that calls were from other businesses, falsely threatening to refer borrowers for criminal investigation or prosecution, and unlawful disclosures of debt information to borrowers' employers, friends, and family. In addition, approximately 20 percent of consumer complaints handled by the Bureau about vehicle title loans involved consumers reporting concerns about repossession issues.

Some vehicle title lenders have installed electronic devices on the vehicles, known as starter interrupt devices, automated collection technology, or more colloquially as “kill switches,” that can be programmed to transmit audible sounds in the vehicle before or at the payment due date. The devices may also be programmed to prevent the vehicle from starting when the borrower is in default on the loan, although they may allow a one-time re-start upon the borrower's call to obtain a code. One of the starter interrupt providers states that “[a]ssuming proper installation, the device will not shut off the vehicle while driving.” Due to concerns about consumer harm, one State financial regulator prohibited the devices as an unfair collection practice in all consumer financial transactions, and a State attorney general issued a consumer alert about the use of starter interrupt devices specific to vehicle title loans. The alert also noted that some title lenders require consumers to provide an extra key to their vehicles. In an attempt to avoid illegal repossessions, Wisconsin's vehicle title law prohibits lenders from requiring borrowers to provide the lender with an extra key to the vehicle. The Bureau has received several complaints about starter interrupt devices.

Business model. As noted above, short-term vehicle title lenders appear to have overhead costs relatively similar to those of storefront payday lenders. Vehicle title lenders' loss rates and reliance on reborrowing activity appear to be even greater than that of storefront payday lenders.

Based on data analyzed by the Bureau, the default rate on single-payment vehicle title loans is six percent and the sequence-level default rate is 33 percent, compared with a 20 percent sequence-level default rate for storefront payday loans. One-in-five single-payment vehicle title loan borrowers has their vehicle repossessed by the lender.

Similarly, the rate of vehicle title reborrowing appears high. In the Bureau's data analysis, more than half, 56 percent, of single-payment vehicle title loan sequences stretched for at least four loans; over a third, 36 percent, were seven or more loans; and 23 percent of loan sequences consisted of ten or more loans. While other sources on vehicle title lending are more limited than for payday lending, the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions publishes a biennial report on vehicle title lending. Like the single-payment vehicle title loans the Bureau has analyzed, the vehicle title loans in Tennessee are 30-day single-payment loans. The most recent report shows similar patterns to those the Bureau found in its research, with a substantial number of consumers rolling over their loans multiple times. According to the report, of the total number of loan agreements made in 2014, about 15 percent were paid in full after 30 days without rolling over. Of those loans that are rolled over, about 65 percent were at least in their fourth rollover, about 44 percent were at least in their seventh rollover, and about 29 percent were at least in their tenth, up to a maximum of 22 rollovers.

The impact of these outcomes for consumers who are unable to repay and either default or reborrow is discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans.

Bank Deposit Advance Products and Other Short-Term Lending

As noted above, within the banking system, consumers with liquidity needs rely primarily on credit cards and overdraft services. Some institutions have experimented with short-term payday-like products or partnering with payday lenders, but such experiments have had mixed results and in several cases have prompted prudential regulators to take action discouraging certain types of activity.

In 2000, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued an advisory letter alerting national banks that the OCC had significant safety and soundness, compliance, and consumer protection concerns with banks entering into contractual arrangements with vendors seeking to avoid certain State lending and consumer protection laws. The OCC noted it had learned of nonbank vendors approaching federally chartered banks urging them to enter into agreements to fund payday and title loans. The OCC also expressed concern about unlimited renewals (what the Bureau refers to as reborrowing), and multiple renewals without principal reduction. The agency subsequently took enforcement actions against two national banks for activities relating to payday lending partnerships.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has also expressed concerns with similar agreements between payday lenders and the depositories under its purview. In 2003, the FDIC issued Guidelines for Payday Lending applicable to State-chartered FDIC-insured banks and savings associations; the guidelines were revised in 2005 and most recently in 2015. The guidelines focus on third-party relationships between the chartered institutions and other parties, and specifically address rollover limitations. They also indicate that banks should ensure borrowers exhibit both a willingness and ability to repay when rolling over a loan. Among other things, the guidelines indicate that institutions should: (1) ensure that payday loans are not provided to customers who had payday loans outstanding at any lender for a total of three months during the previous 12 months; (2) establish appropriate cooling-off periods between loans; and (3) provide that no more than one payday loan is outstanding with the bank at a time to any one borrower. In 2007, the FDIC issued guidelines encouraging banks to offer affordable small-dollar loan alternatives with APRs of 36 percent or less, reasonable and limited fees, amortizing payments, underwriting focused on a borrower's ability to repay but allowing flexible documentation, and to avoid excessive renewals.

The NCUA has taken some steps to encourage federally chartered credit unions to offer “payday alternative loans,” which generally have a longer term than traditional payday products. This program is discussed in more detail in part II.C.

As the payday lending industry grew, a handful of banks decided to offer their deposit customers a similar product termed a deposit advance product (DAP). While one bank started offering deposit advances in the mid-1990s, the product began to spread more rapidly in the late 2000s and early 2010s. DAP could be structured a number of ways but generally involved a line of credit offered by depository institutions as a feature of an existing consumer deposit account with repayment automatically deducted from the consumer's next qualifying deposit. Deposit advance products were available to consumers who received recurring electronic deposits if they had an account in good standing and, for some banks, several months of account tenure, such as six months. When an advance was requested, funds were deposited into the consumer's account. Advances were automatically repaid when the next qualifying electronic deposit, whether recurring or one-time, was made to the consumer's account rather than on a fixed repayment date. If an outstanding advance was not fully repaid by an incoming electronic deposit within about 35 days, the consumer's account was debited for the amount due and could result in a negative balance on the account.

The Bureau estimates that at the product's peak from mid-2013 to mid-2014, banks originated roughly $6.5 billion of advances, which represents about 22 percent of the volume of storefront payday loans issued in 2013. The Bureau estimates that at least 1.5 million unique borrowers took out one or more DAP loans during that same time period.

DAP fees, like payday loan fees, did not vary with the amount of time that the advance was outstanding but rather were set as dollars per amount advanced. A typical fee was $2 per $20 borrowed, the equivalent of $10 per $100. Research undertaken by the Bureau using a supervisory dataset found that the median duration for a DAP advance was 12 days, yielding an effective APR of 304 percent.

The Bureau further found that while the average draw on a DAP was $180, users typically took more than one draw before the advance was repaid. The multiple draws resulted in a median average daily DAP balance of $343, which is similar to the size of a typical payday loan. With the typical DAP fee of $2 per $20 advanced, the fees for $343 in advances equate to about $34.30. The median DAP user was indebted for 112 days over the course of a year and took advances in seven months. Fourteen percent of borrowers took advances totaling over $9,000 over the course of the year; these borrowers had a median number of days in debt of 254.

In 2010, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) issued a supervisory directive ordering one bank to terminate its DAP program, which the bank offered in connection with prepaid accounts, after determining the bank engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices and violated the OTS' Advertising Regulation. Consequently, in 2011, pursuant to a cease and desist order, the bank agreed to remunerate its DAP consumers nearly $5 million and pay a civil monetary penalty of $400,000.

In November 2013, the FDIC and OCC issued final supervisory guidance on DAP. This guidance stated that banks offering DAP should adjust their programs in a number of ways, including applying more scrutiny in underwriting DAP loans and discouraging repetitive borrowing. Specifically, the OCC and FDIC stated that banks should ensure that the customer relationship is of sufficient duration to provide the bank with adequate information regarding the customer's recurring deposits and expenses, and that the agencies would consider sufficient duration to be no less than six months. In addition, the guidance said that banks should conduct a more stringent financial capacity assessment of a consumer's ability to repay the DAP advance according to its terms without repeated reborrowing, while meeting typical recurring and other necessary expenses as well as outstanding debt obligations. In particular, the guidance stated that banks should analyze a consumer's account for recurring inflows and outflows at the end, at least, of each of the preceding six months before determining the appropriateness of a DAP advance. Additionally, the guidance noted that in order to avoid reborrowing, a cooling-off period of at least one monthly statement cycle after the repayment of a DAP advance should be completed before another advance could be extended. Finally, the guidance stated that banks should not increase DAP limits automatically and without a fully underwritten reassessment of a consumer's ability to repay, and banks should reevaluate a consumer's eligibility and capacity for DAP at least every six months.

Following the issuance of the FDIC and OCC guidance, banks supervised by the FDIC and OCC ceased offering DAP. Of two DAP-issuing banks supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) and therefore not subject to either the FDIC or OCC guidance, one eliminated its DAP program while another continues to offer a modified version of DAP to its existing DAP borrowers. Today, with the exception of some short-term lending within the NCUA's Payday Alternative Loan program, described below in part II.C, relatively few banks or credit unions offer large-scale formal loan programs of this type.

C. Longer-Term, High-Cost Loans

As discussed above, beginning in the 1990s, a number of States created carve-outs from their usury laws to permit single-payment payday loans at annualized rates of between 300 percent and 400 percent. Although this lending initially focused primarily on loans lasting for a single income cycle, lenders have introduced newer, longer forms of liquidity loans over time. These longer loan forms include the “hybrid payday loans” discussed above, which are high-cost loans where the consumer is automatically scheduled to make a number of interest or fee only payments followed by a balloon payment of the entire amount of the principal and any remaining fees. They also include “payday installment loans,” described in more detail below. In addition, as discussed above, a number of States have authorized longer term vehicle title loans that extend beyond 30 days. Some longer-term, high cost installment loans likely were developed in response to the Department of Defense's 2007 rules implementing the Military Lending Act. As discussed above in part II.B, those rules applied to payday loans of 91 days or less (with an amount financed of $2,000 or less) and to vehicle title loans of 180 days of less. The Department of Defense recently expanded the scope of the rules due to its belief that creditors were structuring products to avoid the MLA's application.

Payday Installment Loans

Product definition and regulatory environment. The term “payday installment loan” refers to a high-cost loan repaid in multiple installments, with each installment typically due at the consumer's payday and with the lender generally having the ability to collect the payment from the consumer's bank account as money is deposited or directly from the consumer's paycheck.

Two States, Colorado and Illinois, have authorized payday installment loans. A number of other States have adopted usury laws that payday lenders use to offer payday installment loans in addition to more traditional payday loans. For example, a recent report found that eight States have no rate or fee limits for closed-end loans of $500 and that 11 States have no rate or fee limits for closed-end loans of $2,000. The same report noted that for open-end credit, 14 States do not limit rates for a $500 advance and 16 States do limit them for a $2,000 advance. Another recent study of the Web sites of five payday lenders, that operate both online and at storefront locations, found that these five lenders offered payday installment loans in at least 17 States.

In addition, as discussed above, a substantial segment of the online payday industry operates outside of the constraints of State law, and this segment, too, has migrated towards payday installment loans. For example, a study commissioned by a trade association for online lenders surveyed seven lenders and concluded that, while single-payment loans are still a significant portion of these lenders' volume, they are on the decline while installment loans are growing. Several of the lenders represented in the report had either eliminated single-payment products or were migrating to installment products while still offering single-payment loans.

There is less public information available about payday installment loans than about single-payment payday loans. Publicly traded payday lenders that make both single-payment and installment loans often report all loans in aggregate and do not report separately on their installment loan products or do not separate their domestic installment loan products from their international installment loan product lines, making sizing the market difficult. However, one analyst suggests that the continuing trend is for installment loans to take market share—both volume and revenue—away from single-payment payday loans.

More specifically, data on payday installment lending is available, however, from the two States that expressly authorize it. Through 2010 amendments to its payday loan law, Colorado no longer permits short-term single-payment payday loans. Instead, in order to charge fees in excess of the 36 percent APR cap for most other consumer loans, the minimum loan term must be six months. The maximum payday loan amount remains capped at $500, and lenders are permitted to take a series of post-dated checks or payment authorizations to cover each payment under the loan, providing lenders with the same access to borrower's accounts as a single-payment payday loan. The average payday installment loan amount borrowed in Colorado in 2014 was $392 and the average contractual loan term was 189 days. The average APR on these payday installment loans was 190 percent, which reflects the fact that at the same time that Colorado mandated minimum six-month terms it also imposed a new set of pricing restrictions on these loans. Borrowers may prepay without a penalty and receive a pro-rata refund of all fees paid. According to loan data from Colorado, the average actual loan term was 94 days, resulting in an effective APR of 121 percent.

In Illinois, lenders have been permitted to make payday installment loans since 2011 for terms of 112 to 180 days and amounts up to the lesser of $1,000 or 22.5 percent of gross monthly income. A consumer may take out two loans concurrently (single-payment payday, payday installment, or a combination thereof) so long as the total amount borrowed does not exceed the cap. The maximum permitted charge on Illinois payday installment loans is $15.50 per $100 on the initial principal balance and on the balance scheduled to be outstanding at each installment period. For 2013, the average payday installment loan amount was $634 to be repaid in 163 days along with total fees of $645. The average APR on Illinois payday installment loans was 228 percent.

In Illinois, payday installment loans have grown rapidly. In 2013, the volume of payday installment loans made was 113 percent of the 2011 volume. From 2010 to 2013, however, the volume of single-payment payday loans decreased by 21 percent.

Beyond the data from these two States, several studies shed additional light on payday installment lending. A research paper based on a dataset from several payday installment lenders, consisting of over 1.02 million loans made between January 2012 and September 2013, provides some information on payday installment loans. It contains data from both storefront installment loans (55 percent) and online installment loans (45 percent). It found that the median loan amount borrowed was $900 for six months (181 days) with 12 bi-weekly installment payments coinciding with paydays. The median APR on these loans was 295 percent. Online borrowers had higher median gross incomes than storefront borrowers ($39,000 compared to $31,000). When the researchers included additional loans they described as being made under “alternative business models, such as loans extended under tribal jurisdiction,” the median loan amount borrowed was $800 for 187 days due in 12 installments at a higher median APR of 319 percent.

Similarly, a report using data from a specialty consumer reporting agency that included data primarily from online payday lenders that claim exemption from State lending laws examined the pricing and structure of their installment loans. From 2010 to 2014, loans that may be described as payday installment loans generally accounted for one-third of all loans in the sample; however, this fluctuated by quarter between approximately 10 and 50 percent. The payday installment loans had a median APR of 335 percent, across all payment structures. The most common payday installment loan in the sample had 12 bi-weekly payments; a median size of $500 and a median APR of 348 percent.

A third study commissioned by an online lender trade association surveyed a number of online lenders. The survey found that the average payday installment loan was for $667 with an average term of five months. The average fees for these loans were $690. The survey did not provide any APRs but the Bureau estimates that the average APR for a loan with these terms (and bi-weekly payments, the most common payment frequency seen) is about 373 percent.

In a few States, such as Virginia discussed above in part II.B, and Kansas, lenders offer loans structured as open-end payday installment loans. The Bureau believes based on market outreach, that lenders utilize open-end credit structures where they view State licensing or lending provisions as more favorable for open-end products. Some open-end products are for similar loan amounts as single-payment payday loans, cash advances are restricted to set increments such as $50 and must be requested in person, by calling the lender, or visiting the lender's Web site, and payments under the open-end line of credit are due on the borrower's scheduled paydays.

Marketing and underwriting practices. The Bureau believes based on market outreach, that some lenders use similar underwriting practices for both single-payment and payday installment loans (borrower identification, and information about income and a bank account) so long as they have access to the borrower's bank account for repayment. Some payday installment lenders, particularly but not exclusively online lenders, may use underwriting technology that pulls data from nationwide consumer reporting agencies and commercial or proprietary credit scoring models based on alternative data to assess fraud and credit risk. In 2014, net charge-offs at two of the large licensed online installment lenders were over 50 percent of average balances.

The Bureau likewise believes that the customer acquisition costs for online payday installment loans are likely similar to the costs to acquire a customer for an online single-payment payday loan. For example, one large licensed online payday installment lender reported that its 2014 customer acquisition cost per new loan was $297. Another large online lender with both single-payment and payday installment loans reported that its marketing expense is 15.8 percent of revenue in 2014.

Business model. In many respects, payday installment loans are similar to single-payment payday loans. However, one obvious difference is that the loan agreements provide for repayment in installments, rather than single-payment loans that may be rolled over or hybrid loans that automatically rollover, described above in part II.B above.

Regulatory reports from Colorado and Illinois provide evidence of repeat borrowing on payday installment loans. In Colorado, in 2012, two years after the State's amendments to its payday lending law, 36.7 percent of new loans were taken out on the same day that a previous loan was paid off, an increase from the prior year; for larger loans, nearly 50 percent were taken out on the same day that a previous loan was repaid. Further, despite a statutorily-required minimum loan term of six months, on average, consumers took out 2.9 loans from the same lender during 2012 (by prepaying before the end of the loan term and then reborrowing). Colorado's regulatory reports demonstrate that in 2013, the number of loan defaults on payday installment loans, calculated as a percent of the total number of borrowers, was 38 percent but increased in 2014 to 44 percent.

One feature of Illinois' database is that it tracks applications declined due to ineligibility. In 2013, of those payday installment loan applications declined, 54 percent were declined because the applicants would have exceeded the permissible six months of consecutive days in debt and 29 percent were declined as they would have violated the prohibition on more than two concurrently open loans.

In a study of high-cost unsecured installment loans, the Bureau has found that 37 percent of these loans are refinanced. For a subset of loans made at storefront locations, 94 percent of refinances involved cash out (meaning the consumer received cash from the loan refinance); for a subset of loans made online, nearly 100 percent of refinanced loans involved cash out. At the loan level, for unsecured installment loans in general, 24 percent resulted in default; for those made at storefront locations, 17 percent defaulted, compared to a 41 percent default rate for online loans.

A report based on data from several payday installment lenders was generally consistent. It found that nearly 34 percent of these payday installment loans ended in charge-off. Charge-offs were more common for loans in the sample that had been made online (42 percent) compared to those made at storefront locations (27 percent).

Installment Vehicle Title Loans

Product definition and regulatory environment. Installment vehicle title loans are vehicle title loans that are contracted to be repaid in multiple installments rather than in a single payment. Operationally, they are similar to single-payment vehicle title loans that are rolled over and discussed above in part II.B. As discussed in that section, about half of the States authorizing vehicle title loans permit the loans to be repaid in installments rather than, or in addition to, a single lump sum.

As with single-payment vehicle title loans, the State laws applicable to installment vehicle title loans vary. Illinois requires vehicle title loans to be repaid in equal installments, limits the maximum loan amount to the lesser of $4,000 or 50 percent of the borrower's monthly income, has a 15-day cooling-off period except for refinances (defined as extensions or renewals) but does not limit fees. A refinance may be made only when the original principal of the loan is reduced by at least 20 percent. Texas limits the loan term for CSO-arranged title loans to 180 days but does not cap fees. Virginia has both a minimum loan term (120 days) and a maximum loan term (12 months) and caps fees at between 15 to 22 percent of the loan amount per month. It also prohibits rollovers. Wisconsin limits the original loan term to six months but does not limit fees other than default charges, which are limited to 2.75 percent per month; it caps the maximum loan amount at $25,000. Rollovers are not permitted on Wisconsin installment loans.

Some States do not specify loan terms for vehicle title loans, thereby authorizing both single-payment and installment title loans. These States include Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Arizona limits fees to between 10 and 17 percent per month depending on the loan amount; fees do not vary by loan duration. New Mexico and Utah do not limit fees for vehicle title loans, regardless of the loan term. Delaware has no limit on fees but limits the term to 180 days, including rollovers, likewise authorizing either 30-day loans or installment loans.

State regulator data from two States track loan amounts, APRs, and loan terms for installment vehicle title loans. Illinois reported that in 2013, the average installment vehicle title loan amount was over $950 to be repaid in 442.7 days along with total fees of $2,316.43, and the average APR was 201 percent. Virginia data show similar results. In 2014, the average amount borrowed on vehicle title loans was $1,048. The average APR was 222 percent and the average loan term was 345 days. For a $1,048 loan, a Virginia title lender could charge interest of about $216.64 per month, or $2,491.36 for 345 days. The average installment vehicle title loan amounts borrowed are similar to the amounts borrowed in single-payment title loan transactions; the average APRs are generally lower due to the longer loan term, described above in part II.B.

The Bureau obtained anonymized multi-year data from seven lenders offering either or both vehicle title and payday installment loans. The vehicle title installment loan data are from 2010 through 2013; the payday installment data are from 2007 through 2014. The Bureau reported that the average vehicle title installment loan amount was $1,098 and the median loan amount was $710; the average was 14 percent higher, and the median was two percent higher, than for single-payment vehicle title loans. The average APR was 250 percent and the median 259 percent compared to 291 percent and 317 percent for single-payment vehicle title loans.

Industry size and structure. The three largest vehicle title lenders, as defined by store count and described above in part II.B, make both single-payment and installment vehicle title loans, depending on the requirements and authority of State laws. As discussed above, there are no publicly traded vehicle title lenders (though some of the publicly-traded payday lenders also make vehicle title loans) and the one formerly public company did not distinguish its single-payment title loans from its installment title loans in its financial reports. Consequently, estimates of vehicle title loan market size include both single-payment and installment vehicle title loans, including the estimates provided above in part II.B, above.

Marketing and underwriting practices. In most respects, installment vehicle title loans are similar to single-payment vehicle title loans in marketing, borrower demographics, underwriting, and collections. For example, the Bureau is aware from market outreach and market monitoring activities that some installment vehicle title lenders require proof of income as part of the application process for installment vehicle title loans, while others do not. Some installment vehicle title loans are set up to include repayment by ACH from the borrower's account, a practice common to payday installment loans. The Bureau has reviewed some installment vehicle title lenders' loan agreements that provide for delinquency fees if a payment is late.

Business model. Installment vehicle title loans generally perform in a manner similar to single-payment vehicle title loans. One study has analyzed data on repeat borrowing in installment vehicle title loans. The study found that in Q4 2014 in Texas, over 20 percent of installment vehicle title loans were refinanced in the same quarter the loan was made, and that during 2014 as a whole, the dollar volume of vehicle title loans refinanced almost equaled the volume of these loans originated. More recent Texas regulator data indicates similar findings. Of the installment vehicle title loans originated in 2015, 39 percent were subsequently refinanced in the same year, and of all refinances of installment vehicle title loans in 2015, regardless of year of origination, 17 percent were refinanced five or more times.

The Bureau has also analyzed installment vehicle lending data. The Bureau found that 20 percent of vehicle title installment loans were refinanced, with about 96 percent of refinances involving cash out. The median cash-out amount was $450, about 35 percent of the new loan's principal. At the loan level, 22 percent of installment vehicle title loans resulted in default and 8 percent in repossession; at the loan sequence level, 31 percent resulted in default and 11 percent in repossession.

Other Nonbank Installment Loans

Product definition and regulatory environment. Before the advent of single-payment payday loans or online lending, and before widespread availability of credit cards, liquidity loans—also known as “personal loans” or “personal installment loans”—were offered by storefront nonbank installment lenders, often referred to as “finance companies.” “Personal loans” are typically unsecured loans used for any variety of purposes and distinguished from loans where the lender generally requires the funds be used for the specific intended purpose, such as automobile purchase loans, student loans, and mortgage loans. As discussed below, these finance companies, and their newer online counterparts (that offer similar loan products but place more reliance on automated processes and innovative underwriting), have a different business model than payday installment lenders and vehicle title installment lenders. Nonetheless, some loans offered by these installment lenders fall within the proposal's definition of “covered longer-term loan,” as they are made at interest rates that exceed 36 percent or include fees that result in a total cost of credit that exceeds 36 percent, and include repayment by access to the borrower's account or include a non-purchase money security interest in a consumer's vehicle. Additional information regarding the market for these finance company loans and their online counterparts is described below.

According to a report from a consulting firm using data derived from a nationwide consumer reporting agency, in 2015, finance companies originated 8.2 million personal loans (unsecured installment loans) totaling $37.6 billion in originations, of which approximately 6.8 million loans worth $24.3 billion were made to nonprime consumers (categorized as near prime, subprime, and deep subprime, with VantageScores of 660 and below), with an average loan size of about $3,593. As of the end of 2015 there were 7.1 million outstanding loans worth $29.2 billion to nonprime consumers. These nonprime consumers accounted for 71 percent of outstanding accounts and 59 percent of outstanding balances, with an average balance outstanding of about $4,113. Subprime and deep subprime consumers, those with scores between 300 and 600 represented 41 percent of the borrowers and 28 percent of outstanding balances with an average balance of approximately $3,380.

APRs at storefront locations in States that do not cap rates on installment loans can be 50 to 90 percent for subprime and deep subprime borrowers; APRs in States with rate caps are about 36 percent APR for near prime and subprime borrowers. A survey of finance companies conducted in conjunction with a national trade association reported that 80 percent of loans were for $2,000 or less and 85 percent of loans had durations of 24 months or less (60 percent of loans had durations of one year or less). No average loan amount was stated. Almost half of the loans had APRs between 49 and 99 percent; 9 percent of loans of $501 or less had APRs between 100 and 199 percent, but there was substantial rate variation among States. Although APR calculations under Regulation Z include origination fees, lenders generally are not required to include within the finance charge application fees, document preparation fees, and add-on services such as optional credit insurance and guaranteed automobile protection. A wider range and number of such up-front fees and add-on products and services appear to be charged by the storefront lenders than by their newer online counterparts.

Finance companies generally hold State lending licenses in each State in which they lend money and are subject to each State's usury caps. Finance companies operate primarily from storefront locations, but some of them now offer complete online loan platforms.

Industry size and structure. There are an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 storefront finance company locations in the United States —about half to two-thirds the number of payday loan stores—with approximately seven million loans to nonprime borrowers outstanding at any given point in time. Three publicly traded companies account for about 40 percent of these storefront locations. Of these, one makes the majority of its loans to consumers with FICO Scores above 600, and another makes a majority of loans to consumers who have either FICO Scores below 600 or no credit scores due to an absence of credit experience. Another considers its customer base to include borrowers with FICO Scores as low as 500. Among the three publicly traded finance companies in this market, one will make installment loans starting at about $500 and another at $1,500, as well as larger installment loans as high as $15,000 to $25,000.

Given the range of loan sizes of personal loans made by finance companies, and the range of credit scores of some finance company borrowers, it is likely that some of these loans are used to address liquidity shortfalls while others are used either to finance new purchases or to consolidate and pay off other debt.

Marketing and underwriting practices. Customer acquisition methods are generally similar for finance companies and online installment lenders. Finance companies rely on direct mail marketing and online advertising including banner advertisements, search engine optimization, and purchasing online leads to drive traffic to stores. Where allowed by State law, some finance companies mail “live” or “convenience checks” that, when endorsed and cashed or deposited, commit the consumer to repay the loan at the terms stated in the accompanying loan disclosures. Promotional offers include 0 percent interest loans for borrowers who prepare and file their tax returns at the lender's office or refer friends and free credit scores and gift cards.

Finance companies suggest that loans may be used for bill consolidation, home repairs or improvements, or unexpected expenses such as medical bills and automobile repairs. Like their storefront counterparts, online installment lenders also offer promotions such as offers of lower rates on installment loans after a history of successful loan repayments.

Finance companies secure some of their loans with vehicle titles or with a legal security interest in borrowers' vehicles, although the Bureau believes based on market outreach that these loans are generally underwritten based on an assessment of the consumer's income and expenses and are not based primarily on the value of the vehicle in which the interest is provided as collateral. The portfolio of finance company loans collateralized by security interests in vehicles varies by lender and some do not separately report this data from overall portfolio metrics that include direct larger loans, automobile purchase loans, real estate loans, and retail sales finance loans. The Bureau's market outreach with finance companies and their trade associations indicates that at most, 20 to 25 percent of finance company loans—though a higher percentage of receivables—involved a non-purchase money security interest in a vehicle.

Finance companies typically engage in underwriting that includes a monthly net income and expense budget, a review of the consumer's credit report, and an assessment of monthly cash flow. One trade association representing traditional finance companies has described the underwriting process used by these lenders as evaluating the borrower's “stability, ability, and willingness” to repay the loan. In addition to the typical underwriting described above, one finance company has publicized that it is now utilizing alternative sources of consumer data to assess creditworthiness, including the borrower's history of utility payments and returned checks, as well as nontraditional data (such as the type of personal device used when applying for the loan). Many finance companies report loan payment history to one or more of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies, and the Bureau believes from market outreach that these lenders generally furnish on a monthly basis.

From market monitoring activities, the Bureau is aware that there is an emerging group of online installment lenders entering the market with products that in some ways resemble the types of loans made by finance companies rather than payday installment loans. Some of these online installment lenders engage in sophisticated underwriting that involves substantial use of analytics and technology. These lenders utilize systems to verify application information including identity, bank account, and contact information focused on identifying fraud and borrowers intending to not repay. These lenders also review nationwide credit report information as well as data sources that provide payment and other information from wireless, cable, and utility company payments. The Bureau is aware that some online installment lenders obtain authorization to view borrowers' bank and credit card accounts to validate their reported income, assess income stability, and identify major recurring expenses.

Business model. Although traditional finance companies share a similar storefront distribution channel with storefront payday and vehicle title lenders, other aspects of their business model differs markedly. The publicly traded finance companies are concentrated in Midwestern and Southern States, with a particularly large number of storefronts in Texas. A number of finance companies are located in rural areas. One of the publicly traded finance companies states it competes on price and product offerings while another states it emphasizes customer relationships, customer service, and reputation. Similarly, while the emerging online installment lenders share a similar distribution approach with online payday lenders, online hybrid payday installment lenders, and online payday installment lenders, their business models, particularly underwriting, are substantially different.

One of the indicators that underscores this contrast is default rates. In contrast to the high double digit charge-off rates discussed for some industry segments discussed above, reporting to a national consumer reporting agency indicates that during each quarter of 2015, between 2.9 and 3.4 percent of finance company loan balances were charged off. However, these figures include loans made to prime and superprime consumers that would likely not be covered loans under the total cost of credit threshold in proposed § 1041.2(a)(18). In recent years, net charge-off rates at two publicly traded finance companies have ranged from 12 to 15 percent of average balances.

Reborrowing in this market is relatively common, but finance companies refinance many existing loans before the loan maturity date, in contrast to the payday lending practice of rolling over debt on the loan's due date. The three publicly traded finance companies refinance 50 to 70 percent of all of their installment loans before the loan's due date. At least one finance company states it will not “encourage” refinancing if the proceeds from the refinance (cash-out) are less than 10 percent of the refinanced loan amount. In the installment context, refinancing refers to the lender extinguishing the existing loan and may include providing additional funds to the borrower, having the effect of allowing the borrower to skip a payment or reducing the total cost of credit relative to the outstanding loan. The emerging online installment lenders also offer to refinance loans and some notify borrowers of their refinance options with email notifications and notices when they log in to their accounts. Finance companies notify borrowers of refinance options by mail, telephone, text messages, on written payment receipts, and in stores. State laws and company policies vary with respect to whether various loan origination and add-on fees must be refunded upon refinancing and prepayment and, if so, the refund methodology used.

Personal Lending by Banks and Credit Unions

Although as discussed above depository institutions over the last several decades have increasingly emphasized credit cards and overdraft services to meet customers short-term credit needs, they remain a major source of installment loans. According to an industry report, in 2015 banks and credit unions originated 3.8 million unsecured installment loans totaling $22.3 billion to nonprime consumers (defined as near prime, subprime, and deep subprime consumers with VantageScores below 660), with an average loan size of approximately $5,867. As of the end of 2015, there were approximately 6.1 million outstanding bank and credit union unsecured installment loans to these nonprime consumers, with $41.5 billion in outstanding loan balances. Approximately 29 percent of the number of outstanding bank loans (representing 21 percent of outstanding balances) and 49 percent of the credit union loans (representing 35 percent of balances) were to these nonprime consumers.

National banks, most State-chartered banks, and State credit unions are permitted under existing Federal law to charge interest on loans at the highest rate allowed by the laws of the State in which the lender is located (lender's home State). The bank or State-chartered credit union may then charge the interest rate of its home State on loans it makes to borrowers in other States without needing to comply with the usury limits of the States in which it makes the loans (borrower's home State). Federal credit unions must not charge more than 18 percent interest rate, with an exception for payday alternative loans described below. The laws applicable to Federal credit unions are discussed below.

The Bureau believes that the vast majority of the personal loans made by banks and credit unions have a total cost of credit of 36 percent or less, and thus would not be covered loans under the Bureau's proposal. However, through market outreach the Bureau is also aware that many community banks make small personal loans to existing customers who face liquidity shortfalls, at least on an ad hoc basis at relatively low interest rates but some with an origination fee that would bring the total cost of credit to more than 36 percent. These products are generally offered to existing customers as an accommodation and are not mass marketed.

Two bank trade associations recently surveyed their members about their personal loan programs. Although the surveys were small and may not have been representative, both found that banks continue to make personal loans. One survey generated 93 responses with banks ranging in size from $37 million in assets to $48.6 billion, with a heavy concentration of community banks (all bank survey). The second survey was limited to community banks (community bank survey) and generated 132 responses. The surveys, though asking different questions and not necessarily nationally representative, found:

• Loan size and duration. In the community bank survey, 74 percent of the respondents reported that they make loans under $1,000 for durations longer than 45 days, with an average loan amount of $872. No average loan term was reported. Ninety-five percent reported making personal loans larger than $1,000, with an average loan size of under $4,000. In the all bank survey, 73 percent reported making loans of $5,000 or less for a term of less than one year, either as an accommodation for existing customers or as an established lending program. Slightly more than half of the respondents reported making more than 50 such loans in 2014.
• Cost. In the community bank survey the average of the “typical interest rate” reported by the respondents was 12.1 percent for smaller dollar loans and the average maximum rate for such loans was 16.7 percent. Average interest rates for loans greater than $1,000 were about 250 basis points lower. At the same time, two-thirds of the banks reported that they also charge loan fees for the smaller loans and 70 percent do so for the larger loans over $1,000, with fees almost equally divided between application fees and origination fees. For the smaller loans, the median fee when set as a fixed dollar amount was $50 and the average fee $61.44 and when set as a percentage of the loan the average was 3 percent; average fees for loans above $1,000 were slightly higher and average percentage rates slightly lower. The all bank survey did not obtain data at this granular level but 53 percent of the respondents reported that the total cost of credit on at least some loans was above 36 percent.

The community bank survey provided some information about the lending practices of banks that offer small-dollar loans.

• Underwriting. While the Bureau's outreach indicates that these loans are often thought of by the banks as “relationship loans” underwritten based on the bank's knowledge of the customer, in the community bank survey 93 percent reported that they also verified major financial obligations and debt and 78 percent reported that they verified income.

The two bank trade association surveys also provided information relative to repeat use and losses.

• Rollovers. In the community bank survey 52 percent of respondents reported that they do not permit rollovers and 26 percent reported that they allow only a single rollover. Repayment methods vary and include manual payments as well as automated payments. Financial institutions that make loans to account holders retain the contractual right to set off payments due from existing accounts in the event of nonpayment.
• Charge-offs. Both bank surveys reported low charge-off rates: in the community bank survey the average net charge-off rate for loans under $1,000 was 1 percent and for larger loans was less than 1 percent (.86 percent). In the all bank survey, 34 percent reported no charge-offs and 61 percent reported charge-offs of 3 percent or less.

There is little data available on the demographic characteristics of borrowers who take liquidity loans from banks. The Bureau's market monitoring indicates that a number of banks offering these loans are located in small towns and rural areas. Further, market outreach with bank trade associations indicates that it is not uncommon for borrowers to be in non-traditional employment and have seasonal or variable income.

As noted above, Federal credit unions may not charge more than 18 percent interest. However, as described below, they are authorized to make some small-dollar loans at rates up to 28 percent interest plus an applicable fee.

Through market monitoring and outreach, the Bureau is aware that a significant number of credit unions, both Federal and State chartered, offer liquidity loans to their members, at least on an accommodation basis. As with banks, these are small programs and may not be widely advertised. The credit unions generally engage in some sort of underwriting for these loans, including verifying borrower income and its sufficiency to cover loan payments, reviewing past borrowing history with the institution, and verifying major financial obligations. Many credit unions report these loans to a consumer reporting agency. On a hypothetical $500, 6-month loan, many credit unions would charge a 36 percent or less total cost of credit.

Some Federal credit unions offer small-dollar loans aimed at consumers with payday loan debt to pay off these loans at interest rates of 18 percent or less with application fees of $50 or less. Other Federal credit unions (and State credit unions) offer installment vehicle title loans with APRs below 36 percent. The total cost of credit, when application fees are included, may range from approximately 36 to 70 percent on a small loan of about $500, depending on the loan term.

Federal credit unions are also authorized to offer “payday alternative loans.” In 2010, the NCUA adopted an exception to the interest rate limit under the Federal Credit Union Act that permitted Federal credit unions to make payday alternative loans at an interest rate of up to 28 percent plus an application fee, “that reflects the actual costs associated with processing the application” up to $20. PALs may be made in amounts of $200 to $1,000 to borrowers who have been members of the credit union for at least one month. PAL terms range from one to six months, may not be rolled over, and borrowers are limited one PAL at a time and no more than three PALs from the same credit union in a rolling six-month period. PALs must fully amortize and the credit union must establish underwriting guidelines such as verifying employment by requiring at least two pay stubs.

In 2015, over 700 Federal credit unions (nearly 20 percent of all Federal credit unions) offered PALs, with originations at $123.3 million, representing a 7.2 percent increase from 2014. In 2014, the average PAL amount was about $678 and carried a median interest rate of 25 percent. The NCUA estimated that, based on the median PAL interest rate and loan size for 2013, the APR calculated by including all fees (total cost of credit) for a 30-day PAL was approximately 63 percent. However, the Bureau believes based on market outreach that the average PAL term is about 100 days, resulting in a total cost of credit of approximately 43 percent. Based on NCUA calculations, during 2014, annualized PAL charge-offs net of recoveries, as a percent of average PAL balances outstanding, were 7.5 percent.

D. Initiating Payment from Consumers' Accounts

As discussed above, payday and payday installment lenders nearly universally obtain at origination one or more authorizations to initiate withdrawal of payment from the consumer's account. There are a variety of payment options or channels that they use to accomplish this goal, and lenders frequently obtain authorizations for multiple types. Different payment channels are subject to different laws and, in some cases, private network rules, leaving lenders with broad control over the parameters of how a particular payment will be pulled from a consumer's account, including the date, amount, and payment method.

Obtaining Payment Authorization

A variety of payment methods enable lenders to use a previously-obtained authorization to initiate a withdrawal from a consumer's account without further action from the consumer. These methods include paper signature checks, remotely created checks (RCCs) and remotely created payment orders (RCPOs), and electronic payments like ACH and debit and prepaid card transactions. Payday and payday installment lenders—both online and in storefronts—typically obtain a post-dated check or electronic payment authorization from consumers for repayments of loans. For storefront payday loans, lenders typically obtain a post-dated check (or, where payday installment products are authorized, a series of postdated checks) that they can use to initiate a check or ACH transaction from a consumer's account. For an online loan, a consumer often provides bank account information to receive the loan funds, and the lender often uses that bank account information to obtain payment from the consumer. This account information can be used to initiate an ACH payment from a consumer's account. Typically, online lenders require consumers to authorize payments from their account as part of their agreement to receive the loan proceeds electronically. Some traditional installment lenders also obtain an electronic payment authorization from their customers.

Payday and payday installment lenders often take authorization for multiple payment methods, such as taking a post-dated check along with the consumer's debit card information. Consumers usually provide the payment authorization as part of the loan origination process.

For storefront payday loans, providing a post-dated check is typically a requirement to obtain a loan. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) lenders cannot condition credit on obtaining an authorization from the consumer for “preauthorized” (recurring) electronic fund transfers, but in practice online payday and payday installment lenders are able to obtain such authorizations from consumers for almost all loans. The EFTA provision concerning compulsory use does not apply to paper checks and one-time electronic fund transfers. Moreover, even for loans subject to the EFTA compulsory use provision, lenders use various methods to obtain electronic authorizations. For example, although some payday and payday installment lenders provide consumers with alternative methods to repay loans, these options may be burdensome and may significantly change the terms of the loan. For example, one lender increases its APR by an additional 61 percent or 260 percent, depending on the length of the loan, if a consumer elects a cash-only payment option for its installment loan product, resulting in a total APR of 462 percent (210 day loan) to 780 percent (140 day loan). Other lenders change the origination process if consumers do not immediately provide account access. For example, some online payday lenders require prospective customers to contact them by phone if they do not want to provide a payment authorization and wish to pay by money order or check at a later time. Other lenders delay the disbursement of the loan proceeds if the consumer does not immediately provide a payment authorization.

Banks and credit unions have additional payment channel options when they lend to consumers who have a deposit account at the same institution. As a condition of certain types of loans, many financial institutions require consumers to have a deposit account at that same institution. The loan contract often authorizes the financial institution to pull payment directly from the consumer's account. Since these payments can be processed through an internal transfer within the bank or credit union, these institutions do not typically use external payment channels to complete an internal payment transfer.

Exercising Payment Authorizations

For different types of loans that would be covered under the proposed rule, lenders use their authorizations to collect payment differently. As discussed above, most storefront lenders encourage or require consumers to return to their stores to pay in cash, roll over, or otherwise renew their loans. The lender often will deposit a post-dated check or initiate an electronic fund transfer only where the lender considers the consumer to be in “default” under the contract or where the consumer has not responded to the lender's communications. Bureau examiners have cited one or more payday lenders for threatening to initiate payments from consumer accounts that were contrary to the agreement, and that the lenders did not intend to initiate.

In contrast, online lenders typically use the authorization to collect all payments, not just those initiated after there has been some indication of distress from the consumer. Moreover, as discussed above, online lenders offering “hybrid” payday loan products structure them so that the lender is authorized to collect a series of interest-only payments—the functional equivalent of paying finance charges to roll over the loan—before full payment or amortizing payments are due. The Bureau also is aware that some online lenders, although structuring their product as nominally a two-week loan, automatically roll over the loan every two weeks unless the consumer takes affirmative action to make full payment. The payments processed in such cases are for the cost of the rollover rather than the full balance due.

As a result of these distinctions, storefront and online lenders have different success rates in exercising such payment authorizations. Some large storefront lenders report that they initiate payment attempts in less than 10 percent of cases, and that 60 to 80 percent of those attempts are returned for non-sufficient funds. Bureau analysis of ACH payments by online payday and payday installment lenders, which typically collect all payments by initiating a transfer from consumers' accounts, indicates that for any given payment only about 6 percent fail on the first try. However, over an eighteen-month observation period, 50% of online borrowers were found to experience at least one payment attempt that failed or caused an overdraft and over-third of the borrowers experienced more than one such incident.

Lenders typically charge fees for these returned payments, sometimes charging both a returned payment fee and a late fee. These fees are in addition to fees, such as NSF fees, that may be charged by the financial institution that holds the consumer's account.

The Bureau found that if an electronic payment attempt failed, online lenders try again three-quarters of the time. However, after an initial failure the lender's likelihood of failure jumps to 70 percent for the second attempt and 73 percent for the third. Of those that succeed, roughly a third result in an overdraft.

Both storefront and online lenders also frequently change the ways in which they attempt to exercise authorizations after one attempt has failed. For example, many typically make additional attempts to collect initial payment due. Some lenders attempt to collect the entire payment amount once or twice within a few weeks of the initial failure. The Bureau, however, is aware of online and storefront lenders that use more aggressive and unpredictable payment collection practices, including breaking payments into multiple smaller payments and attempting to collect payment multiple times in one day or over a short period of time. The cost to lenders to repeatedly attempt payment depends on their contracts with payment processors and commercial banks, but is generally nominal; the Bureau estimates the cost is in a range of 5 to 15 cents for an ACH transaction. These practices are discussed in more detail in Market Concerns—Payments.

As noted above, banks and credit unions that lend to their account holders can use their internal system to transfer funds from the consumer accounts and do not need to utilize the payment networks. Deposit advance products and their payment structures are discussed further in part II B. The Bureau believes that many small dollar loans with depository institutions are paid through internal transfers.

Due to the fact that lenders obtain authorizations to use multiple payment channels and benefit from flexibility in the underlying payment systems, lenders generally enjoy broad discretion over the parameters of how a particular payment will be pulled from a consumer's account, including the date, amount, and payment method. For example, although a check specifies a date, lenders may not present the check on that date. Under UCC Section 4-401, merchants can present checks for payment even if the check specifies a later date. Lenders sometimes attempt to collect payment on a different date from the one stated on a check or original authorization. They may shift the attempt date in order to maximize the likelihood that funds will be in the account; some use their own models to determine when to collect, while others use predictive payment products provided by third parties that estimate when funds are most likely to be in the account.

Moreover, the checks provided by consumers during origination often are not processed as checks. Rather than sending these payments through the check clearing network, lenders often process these payments through the ACH network. They are able to use the consumer account number and routing number on a check to initiate an ACH transaction. When lenders use the ACH network in a first attempt to collect payment, the lender has used the check as a source document and the payment is considered an electronic fund transfer under EFTA and Regulation E, which generally provide additional consumer protections—such as error resolution rights—beyond those applicable to checks. However, if a transaction is initially processed through the check system and then processed through the ACH network because the first attempt failed for insufficient funds, the subsequent ACH attempt is not considered an electronic fund transfer under current Regulation E. Similarly, consumers may provide their account and routing number to lenders for the purposes of an ACH payment, but the lender may use that information to initiate a remotely created check that is processed through the check system and thus may not receive Regulation E protections.

Payment System Regulation and Private Network Requirements

Different payment mechanisms are subject to different laws and, in some cases, private network rules that affect how lenders can exercise their rights to initiate withdrawals from consumers' accounts and how consumers may attempt to limit or stop certain withdrawal activity after granting an initial authorization. Because ACH payments and post-dated checks are the most common authorization mechanisms used by payday and payday installment lenders, this section briefly outlines applicable Federal laws and National Automated Clearinghouse Association (NACHA) rules concerning stop payment rights, prohibitions on unauthorized payments, notices where payment amounts vary, and rules governing failed withdrawal attempts.

NACHA recently adopted several changes to the ACH network rules in response to complaints about problematic behavior by payday and payday installment lenders, including a rule that allows it to more closely scrutinize originators who have a high rate of returned payments. Issues around monitoring and enforcing those rules and their application to problems in the market for covered loans are discussed in more detail in Market Concerns—Payments.

Stop payment rights. For preauthorized (recurring) electronic fund transfers, EFTA grants consumers a right to stop payment by issuing a stop payment order through their depository institution. The NACHA private rules adopt this EFTA provision along with additional stop payment rights. In contrast to EFTA, NACHA provides consumers with a stop payment right for both one-time and preauthorized transfers. Specifically, for recurring transfers, NACHA Rules require financial institutions to honor a stop payment order as long as the consumer notifies the bank at least 3 banking days before the scheduled debit. For one-time transfers, NACHA Rules require financial institutions to honor the stop payment order as long as the notification provides them with a “reasonable opportunity to act upon the order.” Consumers may notify the bank or credit union verbally or in writing, but if the consumer does not provide written confirmation the oral stop payment order may not be binding beyond 14 days. If a consumer wishes to stop all future payments from an originator, NACHA Rules allow a bank or credit union to require the consumer to confirm in writing that she has revoked authorization from the originator.

Checks are also subject to a stop payment right under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Consumers have a right to stop-payment on any check by providing the bank with oral (valid for 14 days) or written (valid for 6 months) notice. To be effective, the stop payment must describe the check “with reasonable certainty” and give the bank enough information to find the check under the technology then existing. The stop payment also must be given at a time that affords the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on the stop payment before it becomes liable for the check under U.C.C. 4-303.

Although EFTA, the UCC, and NACHA Rules provide consumers with stop payment rights, financial institutions typically charge a fee of approximately $32 for consumers to exercise those rights. Further, both lenders and financial institutions often impose a variety of requirements that make the process for stopping payments confusing and burdensome for consumers. See discussion in Market Concerns—Payments.

Protection from unauthorized payments. Regulation E and NACHA Rules both provide protections with respect to payments by a consumer's financial institution if the electronic transfer is unauthorized. Payments originally authorized by the consumer can become unauthorized under EFTA if the consumer notifies his or her financial institution that the originator's authorization has been revoked. NACHA has a specific threshold for unauthorized returns, which involve transactions that originally collected funds from a consumer's account but that the consumer is disputing as unauthorized. Under NACHA Rules, originators are required to operate with an unauthorized return rate below 0.5 percent or they risk fines and loss of access to the ACH network.

Notice of variable amounts. Regulation E and the NACHA Rules both provide that if the debit amount for a preauthorized transfer changes from the previous transfer or from the preauthorized amount, consumers must receive a notice 10 calendar days prior to the debit. However, both of these rules have an exception from this requirement if consumers have agreed to a range of debit amounts and the payment does not fall outside that range.

Based on outreach and market research, the Bureau does not believe that most payday and payday installment lenders making loans that would be covered under the proposed rule are providing a notice of transfers varying in amount. However, the Bureau is aware that many of these lenders take authorizations for a range of amounts. As a result, lenders use these broad authorizations rather than fall under the Regulation E requirement to send a notice of transfers varying in amount even when collecting for an irregular amount (for example, by adding fees or a past due amount to a regularly-scheduled payment). Some of these contracts provide that the consumer is authorizing the lender to initiate payment for any amount up to the full amount due on the loan.

Reinitiation Cap. After a payment attempt has failed, NACHA Rules allow an originator—in this case, the lender that is trying to collect payment—to attempt to collect that same payment no more than two additional times through the ACH network. NACHA Rules also require the ACH files for the two additional attempts to be labeled as “reinitiated” transactions. Because the rule applies on a per-payment basis, for lenders with recurring payment authorizations, the count resets to zero when the next scheduled payment comes due.

III. Research, Outreach, and Consumer Testing

A. Research and Stakeholder Outreach

The Bureau has undertaken extensive research and conducted broad outreach with a multitude of stakeholders in the years leading up to the release of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. All of the input and feedback the Bureau received from this outreach has assisted the Bureau in the development of this notice.

That process began in January 2012 when the Bureau held its first public field hearing in Birmingham, Alabama, focused on small dollar lending. At the field hearing, the Bureau heard testimony and received input from consumers, civil rights groups, consumer advocates, religious leaders, industry and trade association representatives, academics, and elected representatives and other governmental officials about consumers' experiences with small dollar loan products. The Bureau transcribed that field hearing and posted the transcript on its Web site. Concurrently with doing this, the Bureau placed a notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment on the issues discussed in the field hearing. The Bureau received 664 public comments in response to that request.

At the Birmingham field hearing, the Bureau announced the launch of a program to conduct supervisory examinations of payday lenders pursuant to the Bureau's authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1024. As part of the initial set of supervisory exams, the Bureau obtained loan-level records from a number of large payday lenders.

In April 2013 and March 2014, the Bureau issued two research publications reporting on findings by Bureau staff using the supervisory data. In conjunction with the second of these reports, the Bureau held a field hearing in Nashville, Tennessee, to gather further input from consumers, providers, and advocates alike. While the Bureau was working on these reports and in the period following their release, the Bureau held numerous meetings with stakeholders on small dollar lending in general and to hear their views on potential policy approaches.

The Bureau has conducted extensive outreach to industry, including national trade associations and member businesses, to gain knowledge of small dollar lending operations, underwriting processes, State laws, and the anticipated regulatory impact of the approaches proposed in the Small Business Review Panel Outline. Industry meetings have included non-depository lenders of different sizes, publicly traded and privately held, that offer single-payment payday loans through storefronts and online, multi-payment payday loans, vehicle title loans, open-end credit, and installment loans. The Bureau's outreach with depository lenders has likewise been extensive and included meetings with retail banks, community banks, and credit unions of varying sizes, both Federally and State-chartered. In addition, the Bureau has held extensive outreach on multiple occasions with the trade associations that represent these lenders. The Bureau's outreach also extended to specialty consumer reporting agencies utilized by some of these lenders. On other occasions, Bureau staff met to hear recommendations on responsible lending practices from a voluntarily-organized roundtable made up of lenders, advocates, and representatives of a specialty consumer reporting agency and a research organization.

As part of the process under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA process), which is discussed in more detail below, the Bureau released in March 2015 a summary of the rulemaking proposals under consideration in the Small Business Review Panel Outline. At the same time that the Bureau published the Small Business Review Panel Outline, the Bureau held a field hearing in Richmond, Virginia, to begin the process of gathering feedback on the proposals under consideration from a broad range of stakeholders. Immediately after the Richmond field hearing, the Bureau held separate roundtable discussions with consumer advocates and with industry members and trade associations to hear feedback on the Small Business Review Panel Outline. On other occasions, the Bureau met with members of two trade associations representing storefront payday lenders to discuss their feedback on issues presented in the Small Business Review Panel Outline.

At the Bureau's Consumer Advisory Board meeting in June 2015 in Omaha, Nebraska, a number of meetings and field events were held about payday, vehicle title, and similar loans. The Consumer Advisory Board advises and consults with the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the Federal consumer financial laws, and provides information on emerging practices in the consumer financial products and services industry, including regional trends, concerns, and other relevant information. The Omaha events included a visit to a payday loan store and a day-long public session that focused on the Bureau's proposals in the Small Business Review Panel Outline and trends in payday and vehicle title lending. The Consumer Advisory Board has convened six other discussions on consumer lending. Two of the Bureau's other advisory bodies also discussed the proposals outlined in the Small Business Review Panel Outline: The Community Bank Advisory Council held two subcommittee discussions in March 2015 and November 2015, and the Credit Union Advisory Council conducted one Council discussion in March 2016 and held two subcommittee discussions in April 2015 and October 2015.

Bureau leaders, including its director, and staff have also spoken at events and conferences throughout the country. These meetings have provided additional opportunities to gather insight and recommendations from both industry and consumer groups about how to formulate a proposed rule. In addition to gathering information from meetings with lenders and trade associations and through regular supervisory and enforcement activities, Bureau staff has made fact-finding visits to at least 12 non-depository payday and vehicle title lenders, including those that offer single-payment and installment loans.

In conducting research, the Bureau has used not only the data obtained from the supervisory examinations previously described but also data obtained through orders issued by the Bureau pursuant to section 1022(c)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Act, data obtained through civil investigative demands made by the Bureau pursuant to section 1052 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and data voluntarily supplied to the Bureau by several lenders. Using these additional data sources, the Bureau in April and May 2016 published two research reports on how online payday lenders use access to consumers' bank accounts to collect loan payments and on consumer usage and default patterns on short-term vehicle title loans.

The Bureau also has engaged in consultation with Indian tribes regarding this rulemaking. The Bureau's Policy for Consultation with Tribal Governments provides that the Bureau “is committed to regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials, leading to meaningful dialogue with Indian tribes on Bureau policies that would be expressly directed to tribal governments or tribal members or that would have direct implications for Indian tribes.” To date, the Bureau has held two formal consultation sessions related to this rulemaking. The first was held October 27, 2014, at the National Congress of American Indians 71st Annual Convention and Marketplace in Atlanta, Georgia, prior to the release of the SBREFA materials. At the first consultation session, tribal leaders provided input to the Bureau prior to the drafting of the proposals included in what would become the Small Business Review Panel Outline. A second consultation was held at the Bureau's headquarters on June 15, 2015, so that tribal leaders could respond to the proposals under consideration as set forth in the Small Business Review Panel Outline. All federally recognized tribes were invited to attend these consultations, which included open dialogue in which tribal leaders shared their views with senior Bureau leadership and staff about the potential impact of the rulemaking on tribes. The Bureau expects to engage in additional consultation following the release of the proposed rule, and specifically seeks comment on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from tribal governments.

The Bureau's outreach also has included meetings and calls with individual State Attorneys General, State financial regulators, and municipal governments, and with the organizations representing the officials charged with enforcing applicable Federal, State, and local laws. In particular, the Bureau, in developing the proposed registered information system requirements, consulted with State agencies from States that require lenders to provide information about certain covered loans to statewide databases and intends to continue to do so as appropriate.

As discussed in connection with section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Act below, the Bureau has consulted with other Federal consumer protection and also Federal prudential regulators about these issues. The Bureau has provided other regulators with information about the proposals under consideration, sought their input, and received feedback that has assisted the Bureau in preparing this proposed rule.

In addition to these various forms of outreach, the Bureau's analysis has also been informed by supervisory examinations of a number of payday lenders, enforcement investigations of a number of different types of liquidity lenders, market monitoring activities, three additional research reports drawing on extensive loan-level data, and complaint information. Specifically, the Bureau has received, as of January 1, 2016, 36,200 consumer complaints relating to payday loans and approximately 10,000 more complaints relating to vehicle title and installment loan products that, in some cases, would be covered by the proposed rule. Of the 36,200 payday complaints, approximately 12,200 were identified by the consumer as payday complaints and 24,000 were identified as debt collection complaints related to a payday loan. The Bureau has also carefully reviewed the published literature with respect to small-dollar liquidity loans and a number of outside researchers have presented their research at seminars for Bureau staff.

B. Small Business Review Panel

In April 2015, the Bureau convened a Small Business Review Panel with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As part of this process, the Bureau prepared an outline of the proposals then under consideration and the alternatives considered (referred to above as the Small Business Review Panel Outline), which it posted on its Web site for review and comment by the general public as well as the small entities participating in the panel process.

Prior to formally convening, the Panel participated in teleconferences with small groups of the small entity representatives (SERs) to introduce the Small Business Review Panel Outline and to obtain feedback. The Small Business Review Panel gathered information from representatives of 27 small entities, including small payday lenders, vehicle title lenders, installment lenders, banks, and credit unions. The meeting participants represented storefront and online lenders, in addition to State-licensed lenders and lenders affiliated with Indian tribes. The Small Business Review Panel held a full-day meeting on April 29, 2015, to discuss the proposals under consideration. The 27 small entities also were invited to submit written feedback, and 24 of them provided written comments. The Small Business Review Panel made findings and recommendations regarding the potential compliance costs and other impacts of those entities. These findings and recommendations are set forth in the Small Business Review Panel Report, which will be made part of the administrative record in this rulemaking. The Bureau has carefully considered these findings and recommendations in preparing this proposal as detailed below in the section-by-section analysis on various provisions and in parts VI and VII. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from small businesses.

As discussed above, the Bureau has continued to conduct extensive outreach and engagement with stakeholders on all sides since the SBREFA process concluded.

C. Consumer Testing

In developing this notice, the Bureau engaged a third-party vendor, Fors Marsh Group (FMG), to coordinate qualitative consumer testing for disclosures under consideration in this rulemaking. The Bureau developed several prototype disclosure forms to test with participants in one-on-one interviews. Three categories of forms were developed and tested: (1) Origination disclosures that informed consumers about limitations on their ability to receive additional short-term loans; (2) upcoming payment notices that alerted consumers about lenders' future attempts to withdraw money from consumers' accounts; and (3) expired authorization notices that alerted consumers that lenders would no longer be able to attempt to withdraw money from the consumers' accounts. Observations and feedback from the testing were incorporated into the model forms proposed by the Bureau.

Through this testing, the Bureau sought to observe how consumers would interact with and understand prototype forms developed by the Bureau. In late 2015, FMG facilitated two rounds of one-on-one interviews. Each interview lasted 60 minutes and included fourteen participants. The first round was conducted in September 2015 in New Orleans, Louisiana, and the second round was conducted in October 2015 in Kansas City, Missouri. In conjunction with the release of this notice, the Bureau is making available a report prepared by FMG on the consumer testing (“FMG Report”). The testing and focus groups were conducted in accordance with OMB Control Number 3170-0022.

A total of 28 individuals participated in the interviews. Of these 28 participants, 20 self-identified as having used a small dollar loan within the past two years.

Highlights from individual interview findings. FMG asked participants questions to assess how well they understood the information on the forms.

For the origination forms, the questions focused on whether participants understood that their ability to rollover this loan or take out additional loans may be limited. Each participant reviewed one of two different prototype forms: either one for loans that would require an ability-to-repay determination (ATR Form) or one for loans that would be offered under the conditional exemption for covered short-term loans (Alternative Loan Form). During Round 1, many participants for both form types recognized and valued information about the loan amount and due date; accordingly, that information was moved to the beginning of all the origination forms for Round 2. For the ATR Forms, few participants in Round 1 understood that the “30 days” language was describing a period when future borrowing may be restricted. Instead, several read the language as describing the loan term. In contrast, nearly all participants reviewing the Alternative Loan Form understood that it was attempting to convey that each successive loan they took out after the first in this series had to be smaller than the previous loan, and that after taking out three loans they would not be able to take out another for 30 days. Some participants also reviewed a version of this Alternative Loan Form for when consumers are taking out their third loan in a sequence. The majority of participants who viewed this notice understood it, acknowledging that they would have to wait until 30 days after the third loan was paid off to be considered for another similar loan.

During Round 2, participants reviewed two new versions of the ATR Form. One adjusted the “30 days” phrasing and the other completely removed the “30 days” language, replacing it with the phrase “shortly after this one.” The Alternative Loan Form was updated with similar rephrasing of the “30 days” language. To simplify the table, the “loan date” column was removed.

The results in Round 2 were similar to Round 1. Participants reviewing the ATR forms focused on the language notifying them they should not take out this loan if they're unable to pay the full balance by the due date. Information about restrictions on future loans went largely unnoticed. The edits appeared to positively impact comprehension since no participants interpreted either form as providing information on their loan term. There did not seem to be a difference in comprehension between the group with the “30 days” version and the group with the “shortly” version. As in Round 1, participants who reviewed the Alternative Loan Form noticed and understood the schedule detailing maximum borrowable amounts. These participants understood that the purpose of the Alternative Loan Form was to inform them that any subsequent loans must be smaller.

Questions for the payment notices focused on participants' ability to identify and understand information about the upcoming payment. Participants reviewed one of two payment notices: an Upcoming Withdrawal Notice or an Unusual Withdrawal Notice. Both forms provided details about the upcoming payment attempt and a payment breakdown table. The Unusual Withdrawal Notice also indicated that the withdrawal was unusual because the payment was higher than the previous withdrawal amount. To obtain feedback on participants' likelihood to open notices delivered in an electronic manner, these notices were presented as a sequence to simulate an email message.

In Round 1, all participants, based on seeing the subject line in the email inbox, said that they would open the Upcoming Withdrawal email and read it. Nearly all participants said they would consider the email legitimate. They reported having no concerns about the email because they would have recognized the company name, and because it included details specific to their account along with the lender contact information. When shown the full Upcoming Withdrawal Notice, participants understood that the lender would be withdrawing $40 from their account on a particular date. Several participants also pointed out that the notice described an interest-only payment. Round 1 results were similar for the Unusual Withdrawal Notice; all participants who viewed this notice said they would open the email, and all but one participant—who was deterred due to concerns with the appearance of the link's URL—would click on the link leading to additional details. The majority of participants indicated that they would want to read the email right away, because the words “alert” and “unusual” would catch their attention, and would make them want to determine what was going on and why a different amount was being withdrawn.

For Round 2, the payment amount was increased because some participants found it too low and would not directly answer questions about what they would do if they could not afford payment. The payment breakdown tables were also adjusted to address feedback about distinguishing between principal, finance charges, and loan balance. The results for both the Upcoming Payment and Unusual Payment Notices were similar to Round 1 in that the majority of participants would open the email, thought it was legitimate and from the lender, and understood the purpose.

For the consumer rights notice (referred to an “expired authorization notice” in the report), FMG asked questions about participant reactions to the notice, participant understanding of why the notice was being sent, and what participants might do in response to the notice information. As with the payment notices, these notices were presented as a sequence to simulate an email message.

In Round 1, participants generally understood that the lender had tried twice to withdraw money from their account and would not be able to make any additional attempts to withdraw payment. Most participants expressed disappointment with themselves for being in a position where they had two failed payments and interpreted the notice to be a reprimand from the lender.

For Round 2, the notice was edited to clarify that the lender was prohibited by Federal law from making additional withdrawals. For example, the email subject line was changed from “Willow Lending can no longer withdraw loan payments from your account” to “Willow Lending is no longer permitted to withdraw loan payments from your account.” Instead of simply saying “federal law prohibits us from trying to withdraw payment again,” language was added to both the email message and the full notice saying, “In order to protect your account, federal law prohibits us from trying to withdraw payment again.” More information about consumer rights and the CFPB was also added. Some participants in Round 2 still reacted negatively to this notice and viewed it as reflective of something they did wrong. However, several reacted more positively to this prototype and viewed the notice as protection.

To obtain feedback regarding consumer preferences on receiving notices through text message, participants were also presented with an image of a text of the consumer rights notice and asked how they would feel about getting this notice by text. Overall, the majority of participants in Round 1 (8 of 13) disliked the idea of receiving notices via text. One of the main concerns was privacy; many mentioned that they would be embarrassed if a text about their loan situation displayed on their phone screen while they were in a social setting. In Round 2, the text image was updated to match the new subject line of the consumer rights notice. The majority (10 of the 14) of participants had a negative reaction to the notification delivered via text message. Despite this, the majority of participants said that they would still open the text message and view the link.

Most participants (25 out of 28) also listened to a mock voice message of a lender contacting the participant to obtain renewed payment authorization after two payment attempts had failed. In Round 1, most participants reported feeling somewhat intimidated by the voicemail message and were inclined to reauthorize payments or call back based on what they heard. Participants had a similar reaction to the voicemail message in Round 2.

IV. Legal Authority

The Bureau is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposed rule relies on rulemaking and other authorities specifically granted to the Bureau by the Dodd-Frank Act, as discussed below.

A. Section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act

Section 1031(b)—The Bureau's Authority To Identify and Prevent UDAAPs

Section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides the Bureau with authority to prescribe rules to identify and prevent unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, or UDAAPs. Specifically, Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(b) authorizes the Bureau to prescribe rules “applicable to a covered person or service provider identifying as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service.” Section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act further provides that, “Rules under this section may include requirements for the purpose of preventing such acts or practice.”

Given similarities between the Dodd-Frank Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) provisions relating to unfair and deceptive acts or practices, case law and Federal agency rulemakings relying on the FTC Act provisions inform the scope and meaning of the Bureau's rulemaking authority with respect to unfair and deceptive acts or practices under section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Courts evaluating exercise of agency rulemaking authority under the FTC Act unfairness and deception standards have held that there must be a “reasonable relation” between the act or practice identified as unlawful and the remedy chosen by the agency. The Bureau agrees with this approach and therefore believes that it is reasonable to interpret Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(b) to permit the imposition of requirements to prevent acts or practices that are identified by the Bureau as unfair or deceptive so long as the preventive requirements being imposed by the Bureau have a reasonable relation to the identified acts or practices. The Bureau likewise believes it is reasonable to interpret Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(b) to provide the same degree of discretion to the Bureau with respect to the imposition of requirements to prevent acts or practices that are identified by the Bureau as abusive. Throughout this proposal, the Bureau has relied on and applied this interpretation in proposing requirements to prevent acts or practices identified as unfair or abusive.

Section 1031(c)—Unfair Acts or Practices

Section 1031(c)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Bureau “shall have no authority under this section to declare an act or practice in connection with a transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service, to be unlawful on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair,” unless the Bureau “has a reasonable basis” to conclude that: “(A) the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers; and (B) such substantial injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.” Section 1031(c)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that, “In determining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Bureau may consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence. Such public policy considerations may not serve as a primary basis for such determination.”

The unfairness standard under section 1031(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act—requiring primary consideration of the three elements of substantial injury, not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition, and permitting secondary consideration of public policy—reflects the unfairness standard under the FTC Act. Section 5(n) of the FTC Act was amended in 1994 to incorporate the principles set forth in the FTC's December 17, 1980 “Commission Statement of Policy on the Scope of Consumer Unfairness Jurisdiction” (the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness). The FTC Act unfairness standard, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings, and related case law inform the scope and meaning of the Bureau's authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(b) to issue rules that identify and prevent acts or practices that the Bureau determines are unfair pursuant to Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(c).

Substantial Injury

The first element for a determination of unfairness under section 1031(c)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act is that the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. As discussed above, the FTC Act unfairness standard, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings, and related case law inform the meaning of the elements of the unfairness standard under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(c)(1). The FTC noted in the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness that substantial injury ordinarily involves monetary harm. The FTC has stated that trivial or speculative harms are not cognizable under the test for substantial injury. The FTC also noted that an injury is “sufficiently substantial” if it consists of a small amount of harm to a large number of individuals or if it raises a significant risk of harm. The FTC has found that substantial injury also may involve a large amount of harm experienced by a small number of individuals. The FTC has said that emotional impact and other more subjective types of harm ordinarily will not constitute substantial injury, but the D.C. Circuit held that psychological harm can form part of the substantial injury along with financial harm.

Not Reasonably Avoidable

The second element for a determination of unfairness under section 1031(c)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act is that the substantial injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers. As discussed above, the FTC Act unfairness standard, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings, and related case law inform the meaning of the elements of the unfairness standard under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(c)(1). The FTC has provided that knowing the steps for avoiding injury is not enough for the injury to be reasonably avoidable; rather, the consumer must also understand and appreciate the necessity of taking those steps. As the FTC explained in the FTC's Policy Statement on Unfairness, most unfairness matters are brought to “halt some form of seller behavior that unreasonably creates or takes advantage of an obstacle to the free exercise of consumer decisionmaking.” The D.C. Circuit has noted that where such behavior exists, there is a “market failure” and the agency “may be required to take corrective action.” Reasonable avoidability also takes into account the costs of making a choice other than the one made and the availability of alternatives in the marketplace.

Countervailing Benefits to Consumers or Competition

The third element for a determination of unfairness under section 1031(c)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act is that the act or practice's countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition do not outweigh the substantial consumer injury. As discussed above, the FTC Act unfairness standard, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings, and related case law inform the meaning of the elements of the unfairness standard under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(c)(1). In applying the FTC Act's unfairness standard, the FTC has stated that generally it is important to consider both the costs of imposing a remedy and any benefits that consumers enjoy as a result of the practice. Authorities addressing the FTC Act's unfairness standard indicate that the countervailing benefits test does not require a precise quantitative analysis of benefits and costs, as such an analysis may be unnecessary or, in some cases, impossible; rather, the agency is expected to gather and consider reasonably available evidence.

Public Policy

As noted above, section 1031(c)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that, “In determining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Bureau may consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence. Such public policy considerations may not serve as a primary basis for such determination.”

Section 1031(d)—Abusive Acts or Practices

The Dodd-Frank Act, in section 1031(b), authorizes the Bureau to identify and prevent abusive acts and practices. The Bureau believes that Congress intended for the statutory phrase “abusive acts or practices” to encompass conduct by covered persons that is beyond what would be prohibited as unfair or deceptive acts or practices, although such conduct could overlap and thus satisfy the elements for more than one of the standards.

Under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(d), the Bureau “shall have no authority . . . to declare an act or practice abusive in connection with the provision of a consumer financial product or service” unless the act or practice qualifies under at least one of several enumerated conditions. For example, under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(d)(2)(A), an act or practice might “take[] unreasonable advantage of” a consumer's “lack of understanding . . . of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the [consumer financial] product or service” (i.e., the lack of understanding prong). Under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(d)(2)(B), an act or practice might “take[] unreasonable advantage of” the “inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service” (i.e., the inability to protect prong). The Dodd-Frank Act does not further elaborate on the meaning of these terms. Rather, the statute left it to the Bureau to interpret and apply these standards.

Although the legislative history on the meaning of the Dodd-Frank Act abusiveness standard is fairly limited, it suggests that Congress was particularly concerned about the widespread practice of lenders making unaffordable loans to consumers. A primary focus was on unaffordable home mortgages. However, there is some indication that Congress intended the Bureau to use the authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(d) to address payday lending through the Bureau's rulemaking, supervisory, and enforcement authorities. For example, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs report on the Senate version of the legislation listed payday loans as one of several categories of consumer financial products and services other than mortgages where “consumers have long faced problems” because they lack “adequate federal rules and enforcement,” noting further that “[a]busive lending, high and hidden fees, unfair and deceptive practices, confusing disclosures, and other anti-consumer practices have been a widespread feature in commonly available consumer financial products such as credit cards.” The same section of the Senate committee report included a description of the basic features of payday loans and the problems associated with them, specifically noting that many consumers are unable to repay the loans while meeting their other obligations and that many borrowers reborrow which results in a “perpetual debt treadmill.”

B. Section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act

Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(a) provides that the Bureau may prescribe rules to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product or service, “both initially and over the term of the product or service,” are “fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service, in light of the facts and circumstances.” The authority granted to the Bureau in section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act is broad, and empowers the Bureau to prescribe rules regarding the disclosure of the “features” of consumer financial products and services generally. Accordingly, the Bureau may prescribe rules containing disclosure requirements even if other Federal consumer financial laws do not specifically require disclosure of such features. Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(c) provides that, in prescribing rules pursuant to section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau “shall consider available evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services.”

Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(b)(1) provides that “any final rule prescribed by the Bureau under this section requiring disclosures may include a model form that may be used at the option of the covered person for provision of the required disclosures.” Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(b)(2) provides that such model form “shall contain a clear and conspicuous disclosure that, at a minimum—(A) uses plain language comprehensible to consumers; (B) contains a clear format and design, such as an easily readable type font; and (C) succinctly explains the information that must be communicated to the consumer.” Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(b)(3) provides that any such model form “shall be validated through consumer testing.” Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(d) provides that, “Any covered person that uses a model form included with a rule issued under this section shall be deemed to be in compliance with the disclosure requirements of this section with respect to such model form.”

C. Other Authorities Under the Dodd-Frank Act

Section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Bureau's director “may prescribe rules and issue orders and guidance, as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.” “Federal consumer financial law” includes rules prescribed under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including sections 1031(b) through (d) and 1032.

Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act prescribes certain standards for rulemaking that the Bureau must follow in exercising its authority under section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act. See part VI below for a discussion of the Bureau's standards for rulemaking under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(2).

Section 1022(b)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Bureau to, by rule, “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any class of covered persons, service providers, or consumer financial products or services” from any provision of Title X or from any rule issued under Title X as the Bureau determines “necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives” of Title X, “taking into consideration the factors” set forth in section 1022(b)(3)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1022(b)(3)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act specifies three factors that the Bureau shall, as appropriate, take into consideration in issuing such an exemption.

Proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17 would also be authorized by additional Dodd-Frank Act authorities, such as Dodd-Frank Act sections 1021(c)(3), 1022(c)(7), 1024(b)(1), and 1024(b)(7). Additional description of the Dodd-Frank Act authorities on which the Bureau is relying for proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17 is contained in the section-by-section analysis of proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17.

D. Section 1041 of the Dodd-Frank Act

Section 1041(a)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, other than sections 1044 through 1048, “may not be construed as annulling, altering, or affecting, or exempting any person subject to the provisions of [Title X] from complying with,” the statutes, regulations, orders, or interpretations in effect in any State (sometimes hereinafter, State laws), “except to the extent that any such provision of law is inconsistent with the provisions of [Title X], and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.” Section 1041(a)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that, for purposes of section 1041, a statute, regulation, order, or interpretation in effect in any State is not inconsistent with the Title X provisions “if the protection that such statute, regulation, order, or interpretation affords to consumers is greater than the protection provided” under Title X. Section 1041(a)(2) further provides that, “A determination regarding whether a statute, regulation, order, or interpretation in effect in any State is inconsistent with the provisions of [Title X] may be made by the Bureau on its own motion or in response to a nonfrivolous petition initiated by any interested person.”

The requirements of the proposed rule would set minimum standards at the Federal level for regulation of covered loans. The Bureau believes that the requirements of the proposed rule would coexist with State laws that pertain to the making of loans that the proposed rule would treat as covered loans (hereinafter, applicable State laws). Consequently, any person subject to the proposed rule would be required to comply with both the requirements of the proposed rule and applicable State laws, except to the extent the applicable State laws are inconsistent with the requirements of the proposed rule. This is consistent with the established framework of Federal and State laws in many other substantive areas, such as securities law, antitrust law, environmental law and the like.

As noted above, Dodd-Frank Act section 1041(a)(2) provides that State laws that afford greater consumer protections than provisions under Title X are not inconsistent with the provisions under Title X. As discussed in part II, different States have taken different approaches to regulating loans that would be covered loans, with some States electing to permit the making of such loans and other States choosing not to do so. The Bureau believes that the requirements of the proposed rule would coexist with these different approaches, which are reflected in applicable State laws. The Bureau is aware of certain applicable State laws that the Bureau believes would afford greater protections to consumers than would the requirements of the proposed rule. For example, as described in part II, certain States have fee or interest rate caps (i.e., usury limits) that payday lenders apparently find too low to sustain their business models. The Bureau believes that the fee and interest rate caps in these States would provide greater consumer protections than, and would not be inconsistent with, the requirements of the proposed rule.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart A—General

Section 1041.1 Authority and Purpose

Proposed § 1041.1 provides that the rule is issued pursuant to Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5481, et seq.). It also provides that the purpose of proposed part 1041 (also referred to as “this part” or “this proposed part”) is to identify certain unfair and abusive acts or practices in connection with certain consumer credit transactions and to set forth requirements for preventing such acts or practices and to prescribe requirements to ensure that the features of those consumer credit transactions are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers. It also notes the proposed part also prescribes processes and criteria for registration of information systems.

Section 1041.2 Definitions

Proposed § 1041.2 contains definitions of terms that are used across a number of sections in this rule. There are additional definitions in proposed §§ 1041.3, 1041.5, 1041.9, 1041.14, and 1041.17 of terms used in those respective individual sections.

In general, the Bureau is proposing to incorporate a number of defined terms under other statutes or regulations and related commentary, particularly Regulation Z and Regulation E as they implement TILA and EFTA, respectively. The Bureau believes that basing this proposal's definitions on previously defined terms may minimize regulatory uncertainty and facilitate compliance, particularly where the other regulations are likely to apply to the same transactions in their own right. However, as discussed further below, the Bureau is in certain definitions proposing to expand or modify the existing definitions or the concepts enshrined in such definitions for purposes of this proposal to ensure that the rule has its intended scope of effect particularly as industry practices may evolve. As reflected below with regard to individual definitions, the Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of this general approach and whether alternative definitions in statute or regulation would be more useful for these purposes.

2(a) Definitions

2(a)(1) Account

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(1) would define account by cross-referencing the same term as defined in Regulation E, 12 CFR part 1005. Regulation E generally defines account to include demand deposit (checking), savings, or other consumer asset accounts (other than an occasional or incidental credit balance in a credit plan) held directly or indirectly by a financial institution and established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The term account is used in proposed § 1041.3(c), which would provide that a loan is a covered loan if, among other requirements, the lender or service provider obtains repayment directly from a consumer's account. This term is also used in proposed § 1041.14, which would impose certain requirements when a lender seeks to obtain repayment for a covered loan directly from a consumer's account, and in proposed § 1041.15, which would require lenders to provide notices to consumers before attempting to withdraw payments from consumers' accounts. The Bureau believes that defining this term consistently with an existing regulation would reduce the risk of confusion among consumers, industry, and regulators. The Bureau believes the Regulation E definition is appropriate because that definition is broad enough to capture the types of transactions that may implicate the concerns addressed by this part. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the Regulation E definition of account is appropriate in the context of this part and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(2) Affiliate

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(2) would define affiliate by cross-referencing the same term as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5481(1). The Dodd-Frank Act defines affiliate as any person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another person. Proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.10 would impose certain limitations on lenders making loans to consumers who have outstanding covered loans with an affiliate of the lender. The section-by-section analyses of proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.10 discuss in more detail the particular requirements related to affiliates.

The Bureau believes that defining this term consistently with the Dodd-Frank Act would reduce the risk of confusion among consumers, industry, and regulators. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the Dodd-Frank Act definition of affiliate is appropriate in the context of this part and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(3) Closed-End Credit

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(3) would define closed-end credit as an extension of credit to a consumer that is not open-end credit under proposed § 1041.2(a)(14). This term is used in various parts of the rule where the Bureau is proposing to tailor provisions specifically for closed-end and open-end credit in light of their different structures and durations. Most notably, proposed § 1041.2(a)(18) would prescribe slightly different methods of calculating the total cost of credit of closed-end and open-end credit. Proposed § 1041.16(c) also would require lenders to report whether a covered loan is closed-end or open-end credit to registered information systems. The Bureau solicits comment on whether this definition of closed-end credit is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(4) Consumer

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(4) would define consumer by cross-referencing the same term as defined in in the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5481(4). The Dodd-Frank Act defines consumer as an individual or an agent, trustee, or representative acting on behalf of an individual. The term is used in numerous provisions across proposed part 1041to refer to applicants for and borrowers of covered loans.

The Bureau believes that this definition, rather than the arguably narrower Regulation Z definition of consumer—which defines consumer as “a cardholder or natural person to whom consumer credit is offered or extended”—is appropriate to capture the types of transactions that may implicate the concerns addressed by this proposal. In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act definition expressly defines the term consumer to include agents and representatives of individuals rather than just individuals themselves. The Bureau believes that this definition may more comprehensively foreclose possible evasion of the specific consumer protections imposed by proposed part 1041 than would the Regulation Z definition. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the Dodd-Frank Act definition of consumer is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(5) Consummation

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(5) would define consummation as the time a consumer becomes contractually obligated on a new loan, which is consistent with the definition of the term in Regulation Z § 1026.2(a)(13), or the time a consumer becomes contractually obligated on a modification of an existing loan that increases the amount of the loan. The term is used both in defining certain categories of covered loans and in defining the timing of certain proposed requirements. The time of consummation is important for the purposes of several proposed provisions. For example, under proposed § 1041.3(b)(1), whether a loan is a covered short-term loan would depend on whether the consumer is required to repay substantially all of the loan within 45 days of consummation. Under proposed § 1041.3(b)(3), the determination of whether a loan is subject to a total cost of credit exceeding 36 percent per annum would be made at the time of consummation. Pursuant to proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.10, certain limitations would potentially apply to lenders making covered loans based on the consummation dates of those loans. Pursuant to § 1041.15(f), lenders would have to furnish certain disclosures before a loan subject to the requirements of that section is consummated.

The Bureau believes that defining the term consistently with Regulation Z with respect to new loans would reduce the risk of confusion among consumers, industry, and regulators. The Bureau believes it is also necessary to define the term, with respect to loan modifications, in a way that would further the intent of proposed §§ 1041.3(b)(1), 1041.3(b)(2), 1041.5(b), and 1041.9(b), all of which would impose requirements on lenders at the time the loan amount increases. The Bureau believes defining these events as consummations would improve clarity for consumers, industry, and regulators. The above-referenced sections would impose no duties or limitations on lenders when a loan modification decreases the amount of the loan. Accordingly, in addition to incorporating Regulation Z commentary as to the general definition of consummation for new loans, proposed comment 2(a)(5)-2 explains the time at which certain modifications of existing loans are consummated. Proposed comment 2(a)(5)-2 explains that a modification is consummated if the modification increases the amount of the loan. Proposed comment 2(a)(5)-2 also explains that a cost-free repayment plan, or “off-ramp” as it is commonly known in the market, does not result in a consummation under proposed § 1041.2(a)(5). The Bureau solicits comment on whether this definition is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

The Bureau considered expressly defining the term “new loan” in order to clarify when lenders would need to make the ability-to-repay determinations prescribed in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.9. The definition that the Bureau considered would have defined a new loan as a consumer-purpose loan made to a consumer that (a) is made to a consumer who is not indebted on an outstanding loan, (b) replaces an outstanding loan, or (c) modifies an outstanding loan, except when a repayment plan, or “off-ramp” extends the term of the loan and imposes no additional fees. The Bureau solicits comment on whether this approach would provide additional clarification, and if so, whether this particular definition of “new loan” would be appropriate.

2(a)(6) Covered Short-Term Loan

Proposed § 1041.3(b)(1) would describe covered short-term loans as loans in which the consumer is required to repay substantially the entire amount due under the loan within 45 days of consummation. Some provisions in proposed part 1041 would apply only to covered short-term loans described in proposed § 1041.3(b)(1). For example, proposed § 1041.5 prescribes the ability-to-repay determination that lenders are required to perform when making covered short-term loans. Proposed § 1041.6 imposes limitations on lenders making sequential covered short-term loans to consumers. The Bureau proposes to use a defined term for the loans described in § 1041.3(b)(1) for clarity. The Bureau solicits comment on whether this definition is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(7) Covered Longer-Term Balloon-Payment Loan

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(7) would define covered longer-term balloon-payment loan as a loan described in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2) that requires the consumer to repay the loan in a single payment or repay the loan through at least one payment that is more than twice as large as any other payment under the loan. Proposed § 1041.9(b)(2) contains certain rules that lenders would have to follow when determining whether a consumer has the ability to repay a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan. Moreover, some of the restrictions imposed in proposed § 1041.10 would apply to covered longer-term balloon-payment loans in certain situations.

The term covered longer-term balloon-payment loan would include loans that are repayable in a single payment notwithstanding the fact that a loan with a “balloon” payment is often understood in other contexts to mean a loan repayable in multiple payments with one payment substantially larger than the other payments. The Bureau believes that both structures pose similar risks to consumers, and is proposing to treat both longer-term single-payment loans and multi-payment loans with a balloon payment the same for the purposes of proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to use a single defined term for both loan types to improve the proposal's readability.

Apart from including single-payment loans within the definition of covered longer-term balloon-payment loans, the term substantially tracks the definition of balloon payment contained in Regulation Z § 1026.32(d)(1), with one additional proviso. The Regulation Z definition requires the larger loan payment to be compared to other “regular periodic payments,” whereas proposed § 1041.2(a)(7) requires the larger loan payment to be compared to any other payment(s) under the loan, regardless of whether the payment is a “regular periodic payment.” Proposed comments 2(a)(7)-2 and 2(a)(7)-3 explain that “payment” in this context means a payment of principal or interest, and excludes certain charges such as late fees and payments accelerated upon the consumer's default.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether this definition is appropriate in the context of this proposal and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed. As discussed further in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2), the Bureau also seeks comment on whether longer-term single-payment loans and longer-term loans with balloon payments should be covered regardless of whether the loans are subject to a total cost of credit exceeding a rate of 36 percent per annum, or regardless of whether the lender or service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security in connection with the loan.

2(a)(8) Covered Longer-Term Loan

Some restrictions in proposed part 1041 would apply to covered longer-term loans described in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2). Proposed § 1041.3(b)(2) describes covered longer-term loans as loans with a term of longer than 45 days, which are subject to a total cost of credit exceeding a rate of 36 percent per annum, and in which the lender or service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle title. Some provisions in proposed part 1041 would apply only to covered longer-term loans described in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2). For example, proposed § 1041.9 prescribes the ability to repay determination that lenders are required to perform when making covered longer-term loans. Proposed § 1041.10 imposes limitations on lenders making covered longer-term loans to consumers in certain circumstances that may indicate the consumer lacks the ability to repay. The Bureau proposes to use a defined term for the loans described in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2) for clarity. The Bureau solicits comment on whether this definition is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(9) Credit

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(9) would define credit by cross-referencing the same term as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026. Regulation Z defines credit as the right to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment. This term is used in numerous places throughout this proposal to refer generically to the types of consumer financial products that would be subject to the requirements of proposed part 1041.

The Bureau believes that defining this term consistently with an existing regulation would reduce the risk of confusion among consumers, industry, and regulators. The Bureau also believes that the Regulation Z definition is appropriately broad so as to capture the various types of transaction structures that implicate the concerns addressed by proposed part 1041. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the Regulation Z definition of credit is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(10) Electronic Fund Transfer

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(10) would define electronic fund transfer by cross-referencing the same term as defined in Regulation E, 12 CFR part 1005. Proposed § 1041.3(c) provides that a loan may be a covered longer-term loan if the lender or service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism, which can include the ability to withdraw payments from a consumer's account through an electronic fund transfer. Proposed § 1041.14 would impose limitations on lenders' use of various payment methods, including electronic fund transfers. The Bureau believes that defining this term consistently with an existing regulation would reduce the risk of confusion among consumers, industry, and regulators. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the Regulation E definition of electronic fund transfer is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(11) Lender

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(11) would define lender as a person who regularly makes loans to consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. This term is used throughout this proposal to refer to parties subject to the requirements of proposed part 1041. This proposed definition is broader than the general definition of creditor under Regulation Z in that, under this proposed definition, the credit that the lender extends need not be subject to a finance charge as that term is defined by Regulation Z, nor must it be payable by written agreement in more than four installments.

The Bureau is proposing a broader definition than in Regulation Z for many of the same reasons discussed in the section-by-section analyses of proposed §§ 1041.2(a)(14) and 1041.3(b)(2)(ii) for using the total cost of credit as a threshold for covering longer-term loans rather than the traditional definition of APR as defined by Regulation Z. In both cases, the Bureau is concerned that lenders might otherwise shift their fee structures to fall outside traditional Regulation Z concepts and thus outside the coverage of proposed part 1041. For example, the Bureau believes that some loans that otherwise would meet the requirements for coverage under proposed § 1041.3(b) could potentially be made without being subject to a finance charge as that term is defined by Regulation Z. If the Bureau adopted that particular Regulation Z requirement in the definition of lender, a person who regularly extended closed-end credit subject only to an application fee or open-end credit subject only to a participation fee would not be deemed to have imposed a finance charge. In addition, many of the loans that would be subject to coverage under proposed § 1041.3(b)(1) are repayable in a single payment, so those same lenders might also fall outside the Regulation Z trigger for loans payable in fewer than four installments. Thus, the Bureau is proposing to use a definition that is broader than the one contained in Regulation Z to ensure that proposed part 1041 applies as intended. The Bureau solicits comment on whether there are any alternative approaches that might be more appropriate given the concerns set forth above.

At the same time, the Bureau recognizes that some newly formed companies are providing services that, in effect, allow consumers to draw on money they have earned but not yet been paid. Some of these services do not require the consumer to pay any fees or finance charges. Some rely instead on voluntary “tips” to sustain the business, while others are compensated through electronic fund transfers from the consumer's account. Some current or future services may use other business models. The Bureau is also aware of some newly formed companies providing financial management services to low- and moderate-income consumers which include features to smooth income. The Bureau solicits comments on whether such entities are, or should be, excluded from the definition of lender, and if so, whether the definition should be revised. For example, the Bureau solicits comment on whether companies that impose no charge on the consumer, or companies that charge a regular membership fee which is unrelated to the usage of credit, should be considered lenders under the rule.

The Bureau proposes to carry over from the Regulation Z definition of creditor the requirement that a person “regularly” makes loans to a consumer primarily for personal, family, or household purposes in order to be considered a lender under proposed part 1041. As proposed comment 2(a)(11)-1 explains, the test for determining whether a person regularly makes loans is the same as in Regulation Z, and thus depends on the overall number of loans originated, not just covered loans. The Bureau believes it is appropriate to exclude from the definition of lender persons who make loans for personal, family, or household purposes on an infrequent basis so that persons who only occasionally make loans would not be subject to the requirements of proposed part 1041. Such persons could include charitable, religious, or other community institutions that make loans very infrequently or individuals who occasionally make loans to family members.

Some stakeholders have suggested to the Bureau that the definition of lender should be narrowed so as to exclude financial institutions that predominantly make loans that would not be covered loans under the proposed rule. These stakeholders have suggested that some financial institutions only make loans that would be covered loans as an accommodation to existing customers, and that providing such loans is such a small part of these institutions' overall business such that it would not be practical for the institutions to develop the required procedures for making covered loans. The Bureau solicits comment on whether to so narrow the definition of lender based on the quantity of covered loans an entity offers, and, if so, how to define such a de minimis test. The Bureau also solicits more general comment on whether this definition is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(12) Loan Sequence or Sequence

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(12) would generally define a loan sequence or sequence as a series of consecutive or concurrent covered short-term loans in which each of the loans (other than the first loan) is made while the consumer currently has an outstanding covered short-term loan or within 30 days after the consumer ceased to have a covered short-term loan outstanding. Proposed § 1041.2(a)(12) defines both loan sequence and sequence the same because the terms are used interchangeably in various places throughout this proposal. Proposed § 1041.2(a)(12) also sets forth how a lender must determine a given loan's place within a sequence (for example, whether a loan is a first, second, or third loan in a sequence). Proposed § 1041.6 would also impose certain presumptions that lenders must take into account when making a second or third loan in a sequence, and would prohibit lenders from making a loan sequence with more than three covered short-term loans. Pursuant to proposed § 1041.6, a lender's extension of a non-covered bridge loan as defined in proposed § 1041.2(a)(13) could affect the calculation of time periods for purposes of determining whether a loan is within a loan sequence, as discussed in more detail in proposed comments 6(h)-1 and 6(h)-2.

The Bureau's rationale for proposing to define loan sequence in this manner is discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis of proposed §§ 1041.4 and 1041.6. The Bureau solicits comment on whether a definition of loan sequence or sequence based on a 30-day period is appropriate or whether longer or shorter periods would better address the Bureau's concerns about a consumer's inability to repay a covered loan causing the need for a successive covered loan. The Bureau solicits comment on whether this definition is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(13) Non-Covered Bridge Loan

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(13) would define the term non-covered bridge loan as a non-recourse pawn loan described in proposed § 1041.3(e)(5) that (a) is made within 30 days of the consumer having an outstanding covered short-term loan or outstanding covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made by the same lender or affiliate; and (b) the consumer is required to repay substantially the entire amount due within 90 days of its consummation. Although non-recourse pawn loans would be excluded from coverage under proposed § 1041.3(e)(5), the Bureau has provided rules in proposed §§ 1041.6(h) and § 1041.10(f) to prevent this from becoming a route for evading the rule.

Specifically, proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.10 would impose certain limitations on lenders making covered short-term loans and covered longer-term balloon-payment in some circumstances. The Bureau is concerned that if a lender made a non-covered bridge loan between covered loans, the non-covered bridge loan could mask the fact that the consumer's need for a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan reflected the spillover effects of a prior such covered loan, suggesting that the consumer did not have the ability to repay the prior loan and that the consumer may not have the ability to repay the new covered loan. If the consumer took out a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan immediately following the non-covered pawn loan, but more than 30 days after the last such covered loan, the pawn loan effectively would have “bridged” the gap in what was functionally a sequence of covered loans. The Bureau is concerned that a lender might be able to use such a “bridging” arrangement to evade the requirements of proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.10. To prevent evasions of this type, the Bureau is therefore proposing that the days on which a consumer has a non-covered bridge loan outstanding must not be considered in determining whether 30 days had elapsed between covered loans.

Many lenders offer both loans that would be covered and pawn loans; thus, the Bureau believes that pawn loans are the type of non-covered loan that most likely could be used to bridge covered short-term loans or covered longer-term balloon-payment loans. Proposed § 1041.2(a)(13) would limit the definition of non-covered bridge loan to non-recourse pawn loans that consumers must repay within 90 days of consummation. The Bureau believes that loans with terms of longer than 90 days are less likely to be used as a bridge between covered short-term loans or covered longer-term balloon-payment loans.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether pawn loans can be used as a bridge between covered loans, and further solicits comment on whether other types of loans—including, specifically, balloon-payment loans with terms of longer than 45 days but that do not meet the requirements to be covered longer-term loans under proposed section 1041.3(b)(2)—are likely to be used as bridge loans and therefore should be added to the definition of “non-covered bridge loan.” The Bureau also solicits more general comment on whether this definition is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(14) Open-End Credit

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(14) would define open-end credit by cross-referencing the same term as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, but without regard to whether the credit is consumer credit, as that term is defined in Regulation Z § 1026.2(a)(12), is extended by a creditor, as that term is defined in Regulation Z § 1026.2(a)(17), or is extended to a consumer, as that term is defined in Regulation Z § 1026.2(a)(11). In general, Regulation Z § 1026.2(a)(20) provides that open-end credit is consumer credit in which the creditor reasonably contemplates repeated transactions, the creditor may impose a finance charge from time to time on an outstanding unpaid balance, and the amount of credit that may be extended to the consumer during the term of the plan (up to any limit set by the creditor) is generally made available to the extent that any outstanding balance is repaid. For the purposes of defining open-end credit under proposed part 1041, the term credit, as defined in proposed § 1041.2(a)(9), would be substituted for the term consumer credit in the Regulation Z definition of open-end credit; the term lender, as defined in proposed § 1041.2(a)(11), would be substituted for the term creditor in the Regulation Z definition of open-end credit; and the term consumer, as defined in proposed § 1041 2(a)(4), would be substituted for the term consumer in the Regulation Z definition of open-end credit.

The term open-end credit is used in various parts of the rule where the Bureau is proposing to tailor requirements separately for closed-end and open-end credit in light of their different structures and durations. Most notably, proposed § 1041.2(a)(18) would require lenders to employ slightly different methods when calculating the total cost of credit of closed-end versus open-end loans. Proposed § 1041.16(c) also would require lenders to report whether a covered loan is a closed-end or open-end loan.

The Bureau believes that generally defining this term consistently across regulations would reduce the risk of confusion among consumers, industry, and regulators. With regard to the definition of “consumer,” however, the Bureau believes that, for the reasons discussed above, it is more appropriate to incorporate the definition from the Dodd-Frank Act rather than the arguably narrower Regulation Z definition. Similarly, the Bureau believes that it is more appropriate to use the broader definition of “lender” contained in proposed § 2(a)(11) that the Regulation Z definition of “creditor.”

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the Regulation Z definition of account is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed, particularly as to the substitution of the definitions for “consumer” and “lender” as described above.

2(a)(15) Outstanding Loan

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(15) would define outstanding loan as a loan that the consumer is legally obligated to repay so long as the consumer has made at least one payment on the loan within the previous 180 days. Under this proposed definition, a loan is an outstanding loan regardless of whether the loan is delinquent or the loan is subject to a repayment plan or other workout arrangement if the other elements of the definition are met. Under proposed § 1041.2(a)(12), a covered short-term loan would be considered to be within the same loan sequence as a previous such loan if it is made within 30 days of the consumer having the previous outstanding loan. Proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.7 would impose certain limitations on lenders making covered short-term loans within loan sequences, including a prohibition on making additional covered short-term loans for 30 days after the third loan in a sequence.

The Bureau believes that if the consumer has not made any payment on the loan for an extended period of time it may be appropriate to stop considering the loan to be outstanding loan for the purposes of proposed §§ 1041.2(a)(11), 1041.6, 1041.7, 1041.10, 1041.11 and 1041.12. Because outstanding loans are counted as major financial obligations for purposes of underwriting and because treating a loan as outstanding would trigger certain restrictions on further borrowing by the consumer under the proposed rule, the Bureau has attempted to balance several considerations in crafting the proposed definition. One is whether it would be appropriate for very stale and effectively inactive debt to prevent the consumer from accessing credit, even if so much time has passed that it seems relatively unlikely that the new loan is a direct consequence of the unaffordability of the previous loan. Another is how to define very stale and effectively inactive debt for purposes of any cut-off, and to account for the risk that collections might later be revived or that lenders would intentionally exploit a cut-off in an attempt to encourage new borrowing by consumers.

The Bureau is proposing a 180-day threshold as striking an appropriate balance. The Bureau notes that this would generally align with the policy of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, which generally requires depository institutions to charge-off open-end credit at 180 days of delinquency. Although that policy also requires that closed-end loans be charged off after 120 days, the Bureau believes that a uniform 180-day rule for both closed- and open-end loans may be more appropriate given the underlying policy considerations discussed above as well as for simplicity. Proposed comment 2(a)(15)-2 would clarify that a loan ceases to be an outstanding loan as of the earliest of the date the consumer repays the loan in full, the date the consumer is released from the legal obligation to repay, the date the loan is otherwise legally discharged, or the date that is 180 days following the last payment that the consumer has made on the loan. Additionally, proposed comment 2(a)(15)-2 would explain that any payment the consumer makes restarts the 180-day period, regardless of whether the payment is a scheduled payment or in a scheduled amount. Proposed comment 2(a)(15)-2 would further clarify that once a loan is no longer an outstanding loan, subsequent events cannot make the loan an outstanding loan. The Bureau is proposing this one-way valve to ease compliance burden on lenders and to reduce the risk of consumer confusion.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether 180 days is the most appropriate period of time or whether a shorter or longer time period should be used. The Bureau solicits comment on whether a loan should be considered an outstanding loan if it has in fact been charged off by the lender prior to 180 days of delinquency. The Bureau solicits comment on whether a loan should be considered an outstanding loan if there has been activity on a loan more than 180 days after the consumer has made a payment, such as a collections lawsuit brought by the lender or a third-party. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether a loan should be considered an outstanding loan if there has been activity on the loan with the previous 180 days regardless of whether the consumer has made a payment on the loan within the previous 180 days. The Bureau further solicits comment on whether any additional guidance on this definition is needed.

2(a)(16) Prepayment Penalty

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(16) defines prepayment penalty as any charge imposed for paying all or part of the loan before the date on which the loan is due in full. Proposed §§ 1041.11(e) and 1041.12(f) would prohibit lenders from imposing prepayment penalties in connection with certain loans that are conditionally excluded from the ability-to-repay determination required under proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10. This definition is similar to the definition of prepayment penalty in Regulation Z § 1026.32(b)(6), which generally defines prepayment penalty for closed-end transactions as a charge imposed for paying all or part of the transaction's principal before the date on which the principal is due. However, the definition of prepayment penalty in proposed § 1041.2(a)(16) does not restrict the definition of prepayment penalty to charges for paying down the loan principal early, but also includes charges for paying down non-principal amounts due under the loan. The Bureau believes that this broad definition of prepayment penalty is necessary to capture all situations in which a lender may attempt to penalize a consumer for repaying a loan more quickly than a lender would prefer. As proposed comment 2(a)(16)-1 explains, whether a charge is a prepayment penalty depends on the circumstances around the assessment of the charge. The Bureau solicits comment on whether this definition is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed.

2(a)(17) Service Provider

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(17) would define service provider by cross-referencing the same term as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5481(26). In general, the Dodd-Frank Act defines service provider as any person that provides a material service to a covered person in connection with the offering or provision of a consumer financial product or service. Proposed § 1041.3(c) and (d) would provide that a loan is covered under proposed part 1041 if a service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle title and the other coverage criteria are otherwise met.

The definition of service provider and the provisions in proposed § 1041.3(c) and (d) are designed to reflect the fact that in some States, covered short-term loans and covered longer-term loans are extended to consumers through a multi-party transaction. In these transactions, one entity will fund the loan, while a separate entity, often called a credit access business or a credit services organization, will interact directly with, and obtain a fee or fees from, the consumer. This separate entity will often service the loan and guarantee the loan's performance to the party funding the loan. In the context of covered longer-term loans, the credit access business or credit services organization, and not the party funding the loan, will in many cases obtain the leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security. In these cases, the credit access business or credit services organization is performing the responsibilities normally performed by a party funding the loan in jurisdictions where this particular business arrangement is not used. Despite the formal division of functions between the nominal lender and the credit access business, the loans produced by such arrangement are functionally the same as those covered loans issued by a single entity and appear to present the same set of consumer protection concerns. Accordingly, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to bring loans made under these arrangements within the scope of coverage of proposed part 1041.

The Bureau believes that defining the term service provider consistently with the Dodd-Frank Act would reduce the risk of confusion among consumers, industry, and regulators. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the Dodd-Frank Act definition of service provider is appropriate in the context of proposed part 1041 and whether any additional guidance on the definition is needed. More broadly, and as further discussed in proposed § 1041.3(c) and (d), the Bureau solicits comment on whether the definition of service provider is sufficient to bring these loans within the coverage of proposed part 1041, or whether loans made through this or similar business arrangements should be covered using a different definition.

2(a)(18) Total Cost of Credit

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(18) would set forth the method by which lenders would calculate the total cost of credit for determining whether a loan would be a covered loan under proposed § 1041.3(b)(2). Proposed § 1041.2(a)(18) would generally define the total cost of credit as the total amount of charges associated with a loan expressed as a per annum rate, including various charges that do not meet the definition of finance charge under Regulation Z. The charges would be included even if they are paid to a party other than the lender. Under proposed § 1041.3(b)(2), a loan with a term of longer than 45 days must have a total cost of credit exceeding a rate of 36 percent per annum in order to be a covered loan.

The Bureau is proposing to use an all-in measure of the cost of credit rather than the definition of APR under Regulation Z for many of the same reasons discussed in § 1041.2(a)(11) for proposing a broader definition of lender than Regulation Z uses in defining creditor. In both cases, the Bureau is concerned that lenders might otherwise shift their fee structures to fall outside traditional Regulation Z concepts and outside of this proposal. Specifically, lenders may impose a wide range of charges in connection with a loan that are not included in the calculation of APR under Regulation Z. If these charges were not included in the calculation of the total cost of credit threshold for determining coverage under proposed part 1041, a lender would be able to avoid the threshold by shifting the costs of a loan by lowering the interest rate and imposing (or increasing) one or more fees that are not included in the calculation of APR under Regulation Z. To prevent this result, and more accurately capture the full financial impact of the credit on the consumer's finances, the Bureau proposes to include any application fee, any participation fee, any charge imposed in connection with credit insurance, and any fee for a credit-related ancillary product as charges that lenders must include in the total cost of credit.

Specifically, proposed § 1041.2(a)(18) would define the total cost of credit as the total amount of charges associated with a loan expressed as a per annum rate, determined as specified in the regulation. Proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(i) and related commentary describes each of the charges that must be included in the total cost of credit calculation. Proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(ii) provides that, even if a charge set forth in proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(i)(A) through (E) would be excluded from the finance charge under Regulation Z, that charge must nonetheless be included in the total cost of credit calculation.

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(i)(A) and (B) provide that charges the consumer pays in connection with credit insurance and credit-related ancillary products and services must be included in the total cost of credit calculation to the extent the charges are incurred (regardless of when the charge is actually paid) at the same time as the consumer receives the entire amount of funds that the consumer is entitled to receive under the loan or within 72 hours thereafter. Proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(i)(A) and (B) would impose the 72-hour provision to ensure that lenders could not evade coverage under proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(ii) conditioning the timing of loan proceeds disbursement on whether the consumer purchases credit insurance or other credit related ancillary products or services after consummation. The Bureau believes that the lender's leverage will have diminished by 72 hours after the consumer receives the entirety of the funds available under the loan, and thus it is less likely that any charge for credit insurance or other credit-related ancillary products and services that the consumer agrees to assume after that date is an attempt to avoid coverage under proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(ii).

Proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(iii) and related commentary would prescribe the rules for computing the total cost of credit based on those charges. Proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(iii) contains two provisions for computing the total cost of credit, both of which track the methods already established in Regulation Z. First, for closed-end credit, proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(iii)(A) would require a lender to follow the rules for calculating and disclosing the APR under Regulation Z, based on the charges required for the total cost of credit, as set forth in proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(i). In general, the requirements for calculating the APR for closed-end credit under Regulation Z are found in § 1026.22(a)(1), and include the explanations and instructions for computing the APR set forth in appendix J to 12 CFR part 1026.

Second, for open-end credit, proposed § 1041.2(a)(18)(iii)(B) generally would require a lender to calculate the total cost of credit using the methods prescribed in § 1026.14(c) and (d) of Regulation Z, which describe an “optional effective annual percentage rate” for certain open-end credit products. While Regulation Z provides that these calculation methods are optional, these calculation methods would be required to determine coverage of loans under proposed § 1041.3(b)(2) (though a lender may still choose not to disclose the optional effective annual percentage rate in accordance with Regulation Z). Section 1026.14(c) of Regulation Z provides for the methods of computing the APR under three scenarios: (1) When the finance charge is determined solely by applying one or more periodic rates; (2) when the finance charge is or includes a minimum, fixed, or other charge that is not due to application of a periodic rate, other than a charge with respect to a specific transaction; and (3) when the finance charge is or includes a charge relating to a specific transaction during the billing cycle.

This approach mirrors the approach taken by the Department of Defense in defining the MAPR in 32 CFR 232.4(c). The Bureau believes this measure both includes the necessary types of charges that reflect the actual cost of the loan to the consumer and is familiar to many lenders that must make the MAPR calculation, thus reducing the compliance challenges that would result from a new computation.

At the same time, the Bureau recognizes that the total cost of credit or MAPR is a relatively unfamiliar concept for many lenders compared to the APR, which is built into many State laws and which is the cost that will be disclosed to consumers under Regulation Z. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the trigger for coverage should be based upon the total cost of credit rather than the APR. If so, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the elements listed in proposed § 1041.2(a)(18) capture the total cost of credit to the consumer and should be included in the calculation required by proposed § 1041.2(a)(18) and whether there are any additional elements that should be included or any listed elements that should be excluded. For example, some stakeholders have suggested that the amounts paid for voluntary products purchased prior to consummation, or the portion of that amount paid to unaffiliated third parties, should be excluded from the definition of total cost of credit. The Bureau solicits comments on those suggestions.

The Bureau also solicits comment on whether there are operational issues with the use of the total cost of credit calculation methodology for closed- or open-end loans that the Bureau should consider, and if so, whether there are any alternative methods for calculating the total cost of credit for these products that would address the operational issues. The Bureau further solicits comment on whether any additional guidance on this definition is needed.

Section 1041.3 Scope of Coverage; Exclusions

The primary purpose of proposed part 1041 is to identify and adopt rules to prevent unfair and abusive practices as defined in section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act in connection with certain consumer credit transactions. Based upon its research, outreach, and analysis of available data, the Bureau is proposing to identify such practices with respect to two categories of loans to which the Bureau proposes to apply this rule: (1) Consumer loans that have a duration of 45 days or less; and (2) consumer loans that have a duration of more than 45 days that have a total cost of credit above a certain threshold and that are either secured by the consumer's motor vehicle, as set forth in proposed § 1041.3(d), or are repayable directly from the consumer's income stream, as set forth in proposed § 1041.3(c).

As described below in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.4, the Bureau tentatively concludes that it is an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to make a covered short-term loan without making a reasonable determination that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. The Bureau likewise tentatively concludes that it is an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to make a covered longer-term loan without making a reasonable determination of the consumer's ability to repay the loan. Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to apply the protections of proposed part 1041 to both categories of loans.

Proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.9 would require that, before making a covered loan, a lender must determine that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. Proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.10 would impose certain limitations on repeat borrowing, depending on the type of covered loan. Proposed §§ 1041.7, 1041.11, and 1041.12 would provide for alternative requirements that would allow lenders to make covered loans, in certain limited situations, without first determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. Proposed § 1041.14 would impose consumer protections related to repeated lender-initiated attempts to withdraw payments from consumers' accounts in connection with covered loans. Proposed § 1041.15 would require lenders to provide notices to consumers before attempting to withdraw payments on covered loans from consumers' accounts. Proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17 would require lenders to check and report borrowing history and loan information to certain information systems with respect to most covered loans. Proposed § 1041.18 would require lenders to keep certain records on the covered loans that they make. Finally, proposed § 1041.19 would prohibit actions taken to evade the requirements of proposed part 1041.

The Bureau is not proposing to extend coverage to several other types of loans and is specifically proposing to exclude, to the extent they would otherwise be covered under proposed § 1041.3, certain purchase money security interest loans, certain loans secured by real estate, credit cards, student loans, non-recourse pawn loans, and overdraft services and lines of credit. The Bureau likewise proposes not to cover loans that have a term of longer than 45 days if they are not secured by a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security, or loans that have a total cost of credit below a rate of 36 percent per annum.

By focusing this proposed rule on the types of loans described above, and by proposing to exclude certain types of loans that might otherwise meet the definition of a covered loan from the reach of the proposed rule, the Bureau does not mean to signal any conclusions as to whether it is an unfair or abusive practice to make any other types of loans, such as loans that are not covered by proposed part 1041, without assessing a consumer's ability to repay. Moreover, the proposed rule is not intended to supersede or limit protections imposed by other laws, such as the Military Lending Act and implementing regulations. The coverage limits in this proposal reflect the fact that these are the types of loans the Bureau has studied in depth to date and has chosen to address within the scope of this proposal. Indeed, the Bureau is issuing concurrently with this proposal a Request for Information (the Accompanying RFI) which solicits information and evidence to help assess whether there are other categories of loans for which lenders do not determine the consumer's ability to repay that may pose risks to consumers. The Bureau is also seeking comment in response to the Accompanying RFI as to whether there are additional lender practices with regard to covered loans that may warrant further action by the Bureau.

The Bureau notes that all “covered persons” within the meaning of the Dodd-Frank Act have a duty not to engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The Bureau may consider on a case-by-case basis, through its supervisory or enforcement activities, whether practices akin to those addressed here are unfair, deceptive, or abusive in connection with loans not covered by this proposal. The Bureau also may engage in future rulemaking with respect to other types of loans or practices on covered loans at a later date.

3(a) General

Proposed § 1041.3(a) would provide that proposed part 1041 applies to a lender that makes covered loans.

3(b) Covered Loans

Section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act empowers the Bureau to prescribe rules to identify and prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices associated with consumer financial products or services. Section 1002(5) of the Dodd-Frank Act defines such products or services as those offered or provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes or, in certain circumstances, those delivered, offered, or provided in connection with a consumer financial product or service. Proposed § 1041.3(b) would provide generally that a covered loan means closed-end or open-end credit that is extended to a consumer primarily for personal, family, or household purposes that is not excluded by § 1041.3(e).

By specifying that the rule would apply only to loans that are extended to consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, the Bureau intends to exclude loans that are made primarily for a business, commercial, or agricultural purpose. But a lender would violate proposed part 1041 if it extended a loan ostensibly for a business purpose and failed to comply with the requirements of proposed part 1041 if the loan in fact is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. See the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.19 for further discussion of evasion issues.

Proposed comment 3(b)-1 would clarify that whether a loan is covered is generally based on the loan terms at the time of consummation. Proposed comment 3(b)-2 clarifies that a loan could be a covered loan regardless of whether it is structured as open-end or closed-end credit. Proposed comment 3(b)-3 explains that the test for determining the primary purpose of a loan is the same as the test prescribed by Regulation Z § 1026.3(a) and clarified by the related commentary in supplement I to part 1026. The Bureau believes that lenders are already familiar with the Regulation Z test and that it would be appropriate to apply that same test here to maintain consistency in interpretation across credit markets. Nevertheless, the related commentary in supplement I to part 1026, on which lenders are permitted to rely in interpreting proposed § 1041.3(b), does not discuss particular situations that may arise in the markets that would be covered by proposed part 1041. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the test for determining the primary purpose of a loan presents a risk of lender evasion, and whether additional clarification is needed on how to determine the primary purpose of a covered loan.

3(b)(1)

Proposed § 1041.3(b)(1) would bring within the scope of proposed part 1041 loans in which the consumer is required to repay substantially the entire amount due under the loan within 45 days of either consummation or the advance of loan proceeds. Loans of this type, as they exist in the market today, typically take the form of single-payment loans, including “payday” loans, vehicle title loans, and deposit advance products. However, coverage under proposed § 1041.3(b)(1) would not be limited to single-payment products, but rather would include any single-advance loan with a term of 45 days or less and any multi-advance loan where repayment is required within 45 days of a credit draw. Under proposed § 1041.2(a)(6), this type of covered loan would be defined as a covered short-term loan.

Specifically, proposed § 1041.3(b)(1) prescribes different tests for determining whether a loan is a covered short-term loan based on whether or not the loan is closed-end credit that does not provide for multiple advances to consumers. For closed-end credit that does not provide for multiple advances to consumers, a loan would be a covered short-term loan if the consumer is required to repay substantially the entire amount of the loan within 45 days of consummation. For all other types of loans, a loan would not be a covered short-term loan if the consumer is required to repay substantially the entire amount of an advance within 45 days of the advance under the loan. As proposed comments 3(b)(1)-1 explains, a loan does not provide for multiple advances to a consumer if the loan provides for full disbursement of the loan proceeds only through disbursement on a single specific date. The Bureau believes that a different test to determine whether a loan is a covered short-term loan is appropriate for loans that provide for multiple advances to consumers because open-end credit and closed-end credit providing for multiple advances may be consummated long before the consumer incurs debt that must be repaid. If, for example, the consumer waited more than 45 days after consummation to draw on an open-end line, but the loan agreement required the consumer to repay the full amount of the draw within 45 days of the draw, the loan would not be practically different than a closed-end loan repayable within 45 days of consummation. The Bureau believes it is appropriate to treat the loans the same for the purposes of proposed § 1041.3(b)(1). The Bureau solicits comment on whether these differential coverage criteria for single-advance and multiple-advance loans are appropriate, particularly in light of unique or emerging loan structures that may pose special challenges or risks.

As described in part II, the terms of short-term loans are often tied to the date the consumer receives his or her paycheck or benefits payment. While pay periods typically vary from one week to one month, and expense cycles are typically one month, the Bureau is proposing 45 days as the upper bound for covered short-term loans in order to accommodate loans that are made shortly before a consumer's monthly income is received and that extend beyond the immediate income payment to the next income payment. These circumstances could result in loans that are somewhat longer than a month in duration but nonetheless pose similar risks of harm to consumers as loans with a duration of a month or less.

The Bureau also considered proposing to define these short-term loans as loans that are substantially repayable within either 30 days of consummation or advance, 60 days of consummation or advance, or 90 days of consummation or advance. The Bureau is not proposing the 30-day period because, as described above, some loans for some consumers who are paid on a monthly basis can be slightly longer than 30 days, and yet still essentially constitute a one-pay-cycle, one-expense-cycle loan. The Bureau is not proposing either the 60-day or 90-day period because loans with those terms encompass multiple income and expense cycles, and thus may present somewhat different risks to consumers, though such loans would be covered longer-term loans if they meet the criteria set forth in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2). The Bureau solicits comment on whether covered short-term loans should be defined to include all loans in which the consumer is required to repay substantially the entire amount due under the loan within 45 days of consummation or advance, or whether another loan term is more appropriate.

As discussed further below, the Bureau proposes to treat longer-term loans, as defined in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2), as covered loans only if the total cost of credit exceeds a rate of 36 percent per annum and if the lender or service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security as defined in proposed § 1041.3(c) and (d). The Bureau is not proposing similar limitations with respect to the definition of covered short-term loans because the evidence available to the Bureau suggests that the structure and short-term nature of these loans give rise to consumer harm even in the absence of costs above the 36 percent threshold or particular means of repayment.

Proposed comment 3(b)(1)-3 would explain that a determination of whether a loan is substantially repayable within 45 days requires assessment of the specific facts and circumstances of the loan. Proposed comment 3(b)(1)-4 provides guidance on determining whether loans that have alternative, ambiguous, or unusual payment schedules would fall within the definition. The key principle in determining whether a loan would be a covered short-term loan or a covered longer-term loan is whether, under applicable law, the consumer would be considered to be in breach of the terms of the loan agreement if the consumer failed to repay substantially the entire amount of the loan within 45 days of consummation. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the approach explained in proposed comment 3(b)(1)-3 appropriately delineates the distinction between the types of covered loans.

3(b)(2)

Proposed § 1041.3(b)(2) would bring within the scope of proposed part 1041 several types of loans for which, in contrast to loans covered under proposed § 1041.3(b)(1), the consumer is not required to repay substantially the entire amount of the loan or advance within 45 days of consummation or advance. Specifically, proposed § 1041.3(b)(2) would extend coverage to longer-term loans with a total cost of credit exceeding a rate of 36 percent per annum if the lender or service provider also obtains a leveraged payment mechanism as defined in proposed § 1041.3(c) or vehicle security as defined in proposed § 1041.3(d) in connection with the loan before, at the same time, or within 72 hours after the consumer receives the entire amount of funds that the consumer is entitled to receive. Under proposed § 1041.2(a)(8), this type of covered loan would be defined as a covered longer-term loan. Proposed § 1041.2(a)(7) would specifically define covered longer-term balloon-payment loan for purposes of certain provisions in proposed §§ 1041.6, 1041.9, and 1041.10.

As described in more detail in proposed § 1041.8, it appears to the Bureau to be an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to make covered longer-term loans without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. The Bureau discusses the thresholds that would trigger the definition of covered longer-term loan and seeks related comment below. The Bureau recognizes that the criteria set forth in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2) may encompass some loans that are not used for the same types of liquidity needs that have been the primary focus of the Bureau's study. For example, some lenders make unsecured loans to finance purchases of household durable goods or to enable consumers to consolidate preexisting debt. Such loans are typically for larger amounts or longer terms than, for example, a typical payday loan. On the other hand, larger and longer-term loans that have a higher cost, if secured by a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security, may pose enhanced risk to consumers in their own right, and an exclusion for larger or longer-term loans could provide an avenue for lender evasion of the consumer protections imposed by proposed part 1041. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether coverage under proposed § 1041.3(b)(2) should be limited by a maximum loan amount and, if so, what the appropriate amount would be. The Bureau further solicits comment on whether any such limitation should apply only with respect to fully amortizing loans in which payments are not timed to coincide with the consumer's paycheck or other expected receipt of income, and whether any other protective conditions, such as the absence of a prepayment penalty or restrictions on methods of collection in the event of a default, should accompany and such limitation.

As noted above, the Bureau is publishing an Accompanying RFI concurrent with this notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting information and evidence to help assess whether there are other categories of loans that are generally made without underwriting and as to which the failure to assess the consumer's ability to repay is unfair or abusive. Further, as the Accompanying RFI indicates, the Bureau may, in an individual supervisory or enforcement action, assess whether a lender's failure to make such an assessment is unfair or abusive. As reflected in the Accompanying RFI, the Bureau is particularly interested to seek information to determine whether loans involving a non-purchase money security in personal property or holding consumers' personal identification documents create the same lender incentives and increased risk of consumer harms as described below with regard to leveraged payment mechanisms and vehicle security.

3(b)(2)(i)

Proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(i) would bring within the scope of proposed part 1041 the above-described longer-term loans only to the extent that they are subject to a total cost of credit, as defined in proposed § 1041.2(a)(18), exceeding a rate of 36 percent per annum. This total cost of credit demarcation would apply only to those types of loans listed in § 1041.3(b)(2); the types of loans listed in proposed § 1041.3(b)(1) would be covered even if their total cost of credit is below 36 percent per annum. The total cost of credit measure set forth in proposed § 1041.2(a)(18) includes a number of charges that are not included in the APR measure set forth in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.4 in order to more fully reflect the true cost of the loan to the consumer.

Proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(i) would bring within the scope of proposed part 1041 only longer-term loans with a total cost of credit exceeding a rate of 36 percent per annum in order to focus regulatory treatment on the segment of the longer-term credit market on which the Bureau has significant evidence of consumer harm. As explained in proposed comment 3(b)(2)-1, using a cost threshold excludes certain loans with a term of longer than 45 days and for which lenders may obtain a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security, but which the Bureau is not proposing to cover in this rulemaking. For example, the cost threshold would exclude from the scope of coverage low-cost signature loans even if they are repaid through the lender's access to the consumer's deposit account.

The Bureau's research has focused on loans that are typically priced with a total cost of credit exceeding a rate of 36 percent per annum. Further, the Bureau believes that as the cost of a loan increases, the risk to the consumer increases, especially where the lender obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security. When higher-priced loans are coupled with the preferred payment position derived from a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security, the Bureau believes that lenders have a reduced incentive to underwrite carefully since the lender will have the ability to extract payments even from some consumers who cannot afford to repay and will in some instances be able to profit from the loan even if the consumer ultimately defaults. As discussed above in connection with proposed § 1041.2(a)(18), the Bureau believes that it may be more appropriate to use a total cost of credit threshold rather than traditional APR.

The Bureau recognizes that numerous State laws impose a 36 percent APR usury limit, meaning that it is illegal under those laws to charge an APR higher than 36 percent. That 36 percent APR ceiling reflects the judgment of those States that loans with rates above that limit are per se harmful to consumers and should be prohibited. Congress made a similar judgment in the Military Lending Act in creating a 36 percent all-in APR usury limit with respect to credit extended to servicemembers and their families. Congress, in section 1027(o) of the Dodd-Frank Act, has determined that the Bureau is not to “establish a usury limit,” and the Bureau respects that determination. The Bureau is not proposing to prohibit lenders from charging interest rates, APRs, or all-in costs above the demarcation. Rather, the Bureau is proposing to require that lenders make a reasonable assessment of consumers' ability to repay certain loans above the 36 percent demarcation, in light of evidence of consumer harms in the market for loans with this characteristic.

The Bureau believes for the reasons set forth above and in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.9, that it is appropriate to focus regulatory attention on the segment of longer-term lending that poses the greatest risk of causing the types of harms to consumers that this proposal is meant to address, and that price is an element in defining that segment. The Bureau also believes that setting the line of demarcation at 36 percent would facilitate compliance given its use in other contexts, such as the Military Lending Act. Such differential regulation does not implicate section 1027(o) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau believes that the prohibition on the Bureau “establish[ing] a usury limit” is reasonably interpreted not to prohibit such differential regulation given that the Bureau is not proposing to prohibit lenders from charging interest rates above a specified limit.

The Bureau recognizes that a number of States impose a usury threshold lower than 36 percent per annum for various types of covered loans. Like all State usury limits, and, indeed, like all State laws and regulations that provide additional protections to consumers over and above those contained in the proposed rule, those limits would not be affected by this rule. At the same time, the Bureau is conscious that other States have set other limits and notes that the total cost of credit threshold is not meant to restrict the ability of lenders to offer higher-cost loans. The total cost of credit threshold is intended solely to demarcate loans that—when they include certain other features such as a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security—pose an increased risk of causing the type of harms to consumers that this proposal is meant to address. The protections imposed by this proposal would operate as a floor across the country, while leaving State and local jurisdictions to adopt additional regulatory requirements (whether a usury limit or another form of protection) above that floor as they judge appropriate to protect consumers in their respective jurisdictions.

Thus, the Bureau believes that a total cost of credit exceeding 36 percent per annum provides a useful line of demarcation. The Bureau solicits comment on whether a total cost of credit of 36 percent per annum is an appropriate measurement for the purposes of proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(i) or whether a lower or higher measure would be more appropriate. In the discussion of proposed § 1041.2(a)(18), the Bureau has solicited comment on the components of the total cost of credit metric and the tradeoffs involved in using this metric relative to annual percentage rate.

3(b)(2)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(ii) would bring within the scope of proposed part 1041 loans in which the lender or a service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism, as defined by proposed § 1041.3(c), or vehicle security, as defined by proposed § 1041.3(d), before, at the same time, or within 72 hours after the consumer receives the entire amount of funds that the consumer is entitled to receive under the loan. A leveraged payment mechanism gives a lender the right to initiate a transfer of money from a consumer's account to satisfy an obligation. The Bureau believes that loans in which the lender obtains a leveraged payment mechanism may pose an increased risk of harm to consumers, especially where payment schedules are structured so that payments are timed to coincide with expected income flows into the consumer's account. As detailed in the section-by-section analyses of proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.13, the Bureau believes that the practice of extending higher-cost credit that has a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security without reasonably determining the consumer's ability to repay the loan appears to constitute an unfair and abusive act or practice.

The loans that would be covered under the proposal vary widely as to the basis for leveraged payment mechanism as well as cost, structure, and level of underwriting. Through its outreach, the Bureau is aware that some stakeholders have expressed concern that certain loans that might be considered less risky for consumers would be swept into coverage by virtue of a lien against the consumer's account granted to the depository lender by Federal statute. The Bureau is not proposing an exemption for select bases for leveraged payment mechanism but is proposing, as is set forth in §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12, conditional exemptions from certain requirements for covered loans made by any lender, including depositories, with certain features that would present less risk to consumers.

The proposed rule would not prevent a lender from obtaining a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security when originating a loan. The Bureau recognizes that consumers may find it a convenient or a useful form of financial management to authorize a lender to deduct loan payments automatically from a consumer's account or paycheck. The proposal would not prevent a consumer from doing so. The Bureau also recognizes that obtaining a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security generally reduces the lender's risk. The proposal would not prohibit a lender from doing so. Rather, the proposal would impose a duty on lenders to determine the consumer's ability to repay when a lender obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security. As discussed above with regard to proposed § 1041.2(a)(17), the requirement would apply where either the lender or its service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security in order to assure comprehensive coverage.

The Bureau is not proposing to cover longer-term loans made without a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security in part because if a lender is not assured of obtaining a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security as of the time the lender makes the loan, the Bureau believes the lender has a greater incentive to determine the consumer's ability to repay. If, however, the lender is essentially assured of obtaining a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security as of the time the lender makes the loan, the Bureau believes the lender has less of an incentive to determine the consumer's ability to repay.

For this reason, as proposed comment 3(b)(2)(ii)-1 explains, a lender or service provider obtaining a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security would trigger coverage under proposed part 1041 only if the lender or service provider obtains the leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security before, at the same time as, or within 72 hours after the consumer receives the entire amount of funds that the consumer is entitled to receive under the loan. A loan would not be covered under proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(ii) if the lender or service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security more than 72 hours after the consumer receives the entire amount of funds that the consumer is entitled to receive under the loan.

The Bureau is proposing this 72-hour timeframe rather than focusing solely on obtaining leveraged payment mechanisms or vehicle security taken at consummation because the Bureau is concerned that lenders could otherwise consummate loans in reliance on the lenders' ability to exert influence over the customer and extract a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security while the funds are being disbursed and shortly thereafter. As discussed below, the Bureau is concerned that if the lender is confident it can obtain a leveraged payment mechanism or a vehicle security interest, the lender is less likely to evaluate carefully whether the consumer can afford the loan. The Bureau believes that the lender's leverage will ordinarily have diminished by 72 hours after the consumer receives the entirety of the funds available under the loan and that the proposed 72-hour rule would help to ensure that the lender will engage in appropriate consideration of the consumer's ability to repay the loan. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that it is generally appropriate to use the relative timing of disbursement and leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security authorization to determine whether a loan should be subject to the consumer protections imposed by proposed part 1041.

However, even with this general approach, the Bureau is concerned that lenders might seek to evade the intended scope of the rule if they were free to offer incentives or impose penalties on consumers after the 72-hour period in an effort to secure a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security. Accordingly, as described below in connection with the anti-evasion provisions proposed in § 1041.19, the Bureau is proposing comment 19(a)-2.i.B to state that it is potentially an evasion of proposed part 1041 for a lender to offer an incentive to a consumer or create a detriment for a consumer in order to induce the consumer to grant the lender a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle title in connection with a longer-term loan with total cost of credit exceeding a rate of 36 percent per annum unless the lender determines that the consumer has the ability to repay.

Proposed comment 3(b)(2)(ii)-2 further explains how to determine whether a consumer has received the entirety of the loan proceeds. For closed-end loans, a consumer receives the entirety of the loan proceeds if the consumer can receive no further funds without consummating another loan. For open-end loans, a consumer receives the entirety of the loan proceeds if the consumer fully draws down the entire credit plan and can receive no further funds without replenishing the credit plan, increasing the amount of the credit plan, repaying the balance, or consummating another loan. Proposed comment 3(b)(2)(ii)-3 explains that a contract provision granting the lender or service provider a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security contingent on some future event is sufficient to bring the loan within the scope of coverage.

The approach taken in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(ii) differs from the approach considered in the Small Business Review Panel Outline. Under the approach in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, a loan with a term of more than 45 days would be covered if a lender obtained a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security before the first payment was due on the loan. Upon further consideration, however, the Bureau believes that the approach in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(ii) is appropriate to ensure coverage of situations in which lenders obtain a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security in connection with a new extension on an open-end credit plan that was not a covered loan at original consummation, or prior to a modification or refinancing of an existing open- or closed-end credit plan that was not a covered loan at original consummation. The Bureau believes that this approach has the benefit of ensuring adequate consumer protections in origination situations in which lenders may not have an incentive to determine the consumer's ability to repay, while at the same time allowing for consumers to set up automatic repayment as a matter of convenience at a later date.

The Bureau solicits comment on the criteria for coverage set forth in proposed § 1041.3(b)(2)(ii), including whether the criteria should be limited to cover loans where the scheduled payments are timed to coincide with the consumer's expected inflow of income. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on the basis on which, and the timing at which, a determination should be made as to whether a lender has secured a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security. For example, in outreach, some consumer advocates have suggested that a loan should be treated as a covered loan if the lender reasonably anticipates that it will obtain a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security at any time while the loan is outstanding based on the lender's experience with similar loans. The Bureau invites comments on the workability of such a test and, if adopted, where to draw the line to define the point at which the lender's prior success in obtaining a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security would trigger coverage for future loans.

The Bureau also notes that while consumers may elect to provide a leveraged payment mechanism post-consummation for their own convenience, it is more difficult to envision circumstances in which a consumer would choose to grant vehicle security post-consummation. One possible scenario would be that a consumer is having trouble repaying the loan and provides a security interest in the consumer's vehicle in exchange for a concession by the lender. The Bureau is concerned that a consumer who provides a vehicle security under such circumstances may face a significant risk of harm. The Bureau therefore solicits comment on whether a loan with an all-in cost of credit above 36 percent should be deemed a covered loan if, at any time, the lender obtains vehicle security. However, given the limited circumstances in which a consumer would grant vehicle security after consummation, the Bureau also seeks comment on whether, for a loan with an all-in cost of credit above 36 percent, lenders should be prohibited from taking a security interest in a vehicle after consummation.

3(c) Leveraged Payment Mechanism

Proposed § 1041.3(c) would set forth three ways that a lender or a service provider could obtain a leveraged payment mechanism that would bring the loan within the proposed coverage of proposed part 1041. A lender would obtain a leveraged payment mechanism if the lender has the right to initiate a transfer of money from the consumer's account to repay the loan, if the lender has the contractual right to obtain payment from the consumer's employer or other payor of expected income, or if the lender requires the consumer to repay the loan through payroll deduction or deduction from another source of income. In all three cases, the consumer is required, under the terms of an agreement with the lender, to cede autonomy over the consumer's account or income stream in a way that the Bureau believes changes that lender's incentives to determine the consumer's ability to repay the loan and can exacerbate the harms the consumer experiences if the consumer does not have the ability to repay the loan and still meet the consumer's major financial obligations and basic living expenses. As explained in the section-by-section analysis of proposed §§ 1041.8 and 1041.9, the Bureau believes that it is an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to make such a loan without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay.

3(c)(1)

Proposed § 1041.3(c)(1) would generally provide that a lender or a service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism if it has the right to initiate a transfer of money, through any means, from a consumer's account (as defined in proposed § 1041.2(a)(1)) to satisfy an obligation on a loan. For example, this would occur with a post-dated check or preauthorization for recurring electronic fund transfers. However, the proposed regulation would not define leveraged payment mechanism to include situations in which the lender or service provider initiates a one-time electronic fund transfer immediately after the consumer authorizes such transfer.

As proposed comment 3(c)(1)-1 explains, the key principle that makes a payment mechanism “leveraged” is whether the lender has the ability to “pull” funds from a consumer's account without any intervening action or further assent by the consumer. In those cases, the lender's ability to pull payments from the consumer's account gives the lender the ability to time and initiate payments to coincide with expected income flows into the consumer's account. This means that the lender may be able to continue to obtain payment (as long as the consumer receives income and maintains the account) even if the consumer does not have the ability to repay the loan while meeting his or her major financial obligations and basic living expenses. In contrast, a payment mechanism in which the consumer “pushes” funds from his or her account to the lender does not provide the lender leverage over the account in a way that changes the lender's incentives to determine the consumer's ability to repay the loan or exacerbates the harms the consumer experiences if the consumer does not have the ability to repay the loan.

Proposed comment 3(c)(1)-2 provides examples of the types of authorizations for lender-initiated transfers that constitute leveraged payment mechanisms. These include checks written by the consumer, authorizations for electronic fund transfers (other than immediate one-time transfers as discussed further below), authorizations to create or present remotely created checks, and authorizations for certain transfers by account-holding institutions (including a right of set-off). Proposed comment 3(c)(1)-3 explains that a lender does not obtain a leveraged payment mechanism if a consumer authorizes a third party to transfer money from the consumer's account to a lender as long as the transfer is not made pursuant to an incentive or instruction from, or duty to, a lender or service provider. The Bureau solicits comment on whether this definition of leveraged payment mechanism appropriately captures payment methods that are likely to produce the risks to consumers identified by the Bureau in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.8.

As noted above, proposed § 1041.3(c)(1) would provide that a lender or service provider does not obtain a leveraged payment mechanism by initiating a one-time electronic fund transfer immediately after the consumer authorizes the transfer. This provision is similar to what the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.15(b), which exempts lender from providing the payment notice when initiating a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request, as that term is defined in § 1041.14(a)(2), and is also similar to what the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.14(d), which permits lenders to initiate a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request even after the prohibition in proposed § 1041.14(b) on initiating further payment transfers has been triggered.

Accordingly, proposed comment 3(c)(1)-3 would clarify that if the loan agreement between the parties does not otherwise provide for the lender or service provider to initiate a transfer without further consumer action, the consumer may authorize a one-time transfer without causing the loan to be a covered loan. Proposed comment 3(c)(1)-3 further clarifies that the phrase “immediately” means that the lender initiates the transfer after the authorization with as little delay as possible, which in most circumstances will be within a few minutes.

The Bureau anticipates that scenarios involving authorizations for immediate one-time transfers will only arise in certain discrete situations. For closed-end loans, a lender is permitted to obtain a leveraged payment mechanism more than 72 hours after the consumer has received the entirety of the loan proceeds without the loan becoming a covered loan. Thus, in the closed-end context, this exception would only be relevant if the consumer was required to make a payment within 72 hours of receiving the loan proceeds—a situation which is unlikely to occur. However, the situation may be more likely to occur with open-end credit. Longer-term open-end can be covered loans if the lender obtains a leveraged payment mechanism within 72 hours of the consumer receiving the full amount of the funds which the consumer is entitled to receive under the loan. Thus, if a consumer only partially drew down the credit plan, but the consumer was required to make a payment, a one-time electronic fund transfer could trigger coverage without the one-time immediate transfer exception. The Bureau believes it is appropriate for these transfers not to trigger coverage because there is a reduced risk that such transfers will re-align lender incentives in a similar manner as other types of leveraged payment mechanisms.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether this exclusion from the definition of leveraged payment mechanism is appropriate and whether additional guidance is needed. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether any additional exceptions to the general principle of proposed § 1041.3(c)(1) are appropriate.

3(c)(2)

Proposed § 1041.3(c)(2) would provide that a lender or a service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism if it has the contractual right to obtain payment directly from the consumer's employer or other payor of income. This scenario typically involves a wage assignment, which, as described by the FTC, is “a contractual transfer by a debtor to a creditor of the right to receive wages directly from the debtor's employer. To activate the assignment, the creditor simply submits it to the debtor's employer, who then pays all or a percentage of debtor's wages to the creditor.” These arrangements are creatures of State law and can take various forms. For example, they can be used either as a method of making regular payments during the term of the loan or as a collections tool when borrowers default. Such arrangements are legal in some jurisdictions, but illegal in others.

As discussed further in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the Bureau is concerned that where loan agreements provide for assignments of income, the lender incentives and potential consumer risks can be very similar to those presented by other forms of leveraged payment mechanism defined in proposed § 1041.3(c). In particular, a lender—as when it has the right to initiate transfers from a consumer's account—can continue to obtain payment as long as the consumer receives income, even if the consumer does not have the ability to repay the loan while meeting her major financial obligations and basic living expenses. And—as when a lender has the right to initiate transfers from a consumer's account—an assignment of income can change the lender's incentives to determine the consumer's ability to repay the loan and exacerbate the harms the consumer experiences if the consumer does not have the ability to repay the loan. Thus, the Bureau believes that loan agreements that provide for assignments of income may present the same risk of harm to consumers as other types of leveraged payment mechanisms. The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed definition and whether additional guidance is needed.

The Bureau recognizes that some consumers may find it a convenient or useful form of financial management to repay a loan through a revocable wage assignment. The proposed rule would not prevent a consumer from doing so. Rather, the proposed rule would impose a duty on lenders to determine the consumer's ability to repay when the lender or service provider has the right to obtain payment directly from the consumer's employer or other payor of income.

3(c)(3)

Proposed § 1041.3(c)(3) would provide that a lender or a service provider obtains a leveraged payment mechanism if the loan requires the consumer to repay through a payroll deduction or deduction from another source of income. As proposed comment 3(c)(3)-1 explains, a payroll deduction involves a direction by the consumer to the consumer's employer (or other payor of income) to pay a portion of the consumer's wages or other income to the lender or service provider, rather than a direction by the lender to the consumer's employer as in a wage assignment. The Bureau is concerned that if an agreement between the lender and consumer requires the consumer to have his or her employer or other payor of income pay the lender directly, the consumer would be in the same situation and face the same risk of harm as if the lender had the ability to initiate a transfer from the consumer's account or had a right to a wage assignment.

The Bureau recognizes that just as some consumers may find it a convenient or useful form of financial management to authorize a lender to deduct loan payments automatically from a consumer's account, so, too, may some consumers find it a convenient or useful form of financial management to authorize their employer to deduct loan payments automatically from the consumer's paycheck and remit the money to the lender. The proposed rule would not prevent a consumer from doing so. Rather, the proposed rule would impose a duty on lenders to determine the consumer's ability to repay only when a lender requires the consumer to authorize such payroll deduction as a condition of the loan thereby imposing a contractual obligation on the consumer to continue such payroll deduction during the term of the loan. The Bureau solicits comment on whether a lender should have a duty to determine the consumer's ability to repay only when the lender requires payroll deduction, or whether such a duty should also apply when the lender incentivizes payroll deduction.

3(d) Vehicle Security

Proposed § 1041.3(d) would provide that a lender or service provider obtains vehicle security if the lender or service provider obtains an interest in a consumer's motor vehicle, regardless of how the transaction is characterized under State law. Under proposed § 1041.3(d), a lender or service provider could obtain vehicle security regardless of whether the lender or service provider has perfected or recorded the interest. A lender or service provider also would obtain vehicle security under proposed § 1041.3(d) if the consumer pledges the vehicle to the lender or service provider in a pawn transaction and the consumer retains possession of the vehicle during the loan. In each case, a lender or service provider would obtain vehicle security under proposed § 1041.3(d) if the consumer is required, under the terms of an agreement with the lender or service provider, to grant an interest in the consumer's vehicle to the lender in the event that the consumer does not repay the loan.

However, as noted above and discussed further below, proposed § 1041.3(e) would exclude loans made solely and expressly for the purpose of financing a consumer's initial purchase of a motor vehicle in which the lender takes a security interest as a condition of the credit, as well as non-recourse pawn loans in which the lender has sole physical possession and use of the property for the entire term of the loan. Proposed comment 3(d)(1)-1 also clarifies that mechanic liens and other situations in which a party obtains a security interest in a consumer's motor vehicle for a reason that is unrelated to an extension of credit do not trigger coverage.

The Bureau believes that when a lender obtains vehicle security in connection with the consummation of a loan, the lender effectively achieves a preferred payment position similar to the position that a lender obtains with a leveraged payment mechanism. If the loan is unaffordable, the consumer will face the difficult choice of either defaulting on the loan and putting the consumer's automobile (and potentially the consumer's livelihood) at risk or repaying the loan even if doing so means defaulting on major financial obligations or foregoing basic living needs. As a result, the lender has limited incentive to assure that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. For these reasons, the Bureau believes that it is appropriate to include within the definition of covered longer-term loans those loans for which the lender or service provider obtains vehicle security before, at the same time as, or within 72 hours after the consumer receives all the funds the consumer is entitled to receive under the loan. However, as noted above, the Bureau solicits comment on whether a longer-term loan with an all-in cost of credit above 36% should be deemed a covered loan if, at any time, the lender obtains vehicle security.

3(d)(1)

Proposed § 1041.3(d)(1) would provide that any security interest that the lender or service provider obtains as a condition of the loan would constitute vehicle security for the purpose of determining coverage under proposed part 1041. The term security interest would include any security interest that the lender or service provider has in the consumer's vehicle, vehicle title, or vehicle registration. As proposed comment 3(d)(1)-1 clarifies, a party would not obtain vehicle security if that person obtains a security interest in the consumer's vehicle for a reason unrelated to the loan.

The security interest would not need to be perfected or recorded in order to trigger coverage under proposed § 1041.3(d)(1). The consumer may not be aware that the security interest is not perfected or recorded, nor would it matter in many cases. Perfection or recordation protects the lender's interest in the vehicle against claims asserted by other creditors, but does not necessarily affect whether the consumer's interest in the vehicle is at risk if the consumer does not have the ability to repay the loan. Even if the lender or service provider does not perfect or record its security interest, the security interest can still change a lender's incentives to determine the consumer's ability to repay the loan and exacerbate the harms the consumer experiences if the consumer does not have the ability to repay the loan.

3(d)(2)

Proposed § 1041.3(d)(2) would provide that pawn transactions generally would constitute vehicle security for the purpose of determining coverage under proposed part 1041 if the consumer pledges the vehicle in connection with the transaction and the consumer retains use of the vehicle during the term of the pawn agreement. However, pawn transactions would not trigger coverage if they fell within the scope of proposed § 1041.3(e)(5), which would exclude bona fide non-recourse pawn transactions where the lender obtains custody of the vehicle and there is no recourse against the consumer for the balance due if the consumer is unable to repay the loan.

The proposed language is designed to account for the fact that, in response to laws in several jurisdictions, lenders have structured higher-cost, vehicle-secured loans as pawn agreements, though these “vehicle pawn” or “title pawn” loans are the functional equivalent of loans covered by proposed § 1041.3(d) in which the lender has vehicle security because the terms on which the loans are offered are similar. Further, the ramifications for both the lender and the consumer are similar in the event the consumer does not have the ability to repay the loan—the lender can repossess the consumer's vehicle and sell it. And, as also discussed in the section-by-section analysis for proposed § 1041.3(e)(5), vehicle pawn and title pawn loans often do not require the consumer to relinquish physical control of the motor vehicle while the loan is outstanding, which is likely to make the threat of repossession a more powerful form of leverage should the consumer not repay the covered loan. Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to treat vehicle title pawn loans the same as vehicle security loans for the purposes of proposed part 1041.

3(e) Exclusions

Proposed § 1041.3(e) would exclude purchase money security interest loans extended solely for the purchase of a good, real estate secured loans, certain credit cards, student loans, non-recourse pawn loans in which the consumer does not possess the pledged collateral, and overdraft services and lines of credit. The Bureau believes that notwithstanding the potential term, cost of credit, repayment structure, or security of these loans, they arise in distinct markets that the Bureau believes may pose a somewhat different set of concerns for consumers. At the same time, as discussed further below, the Bureau is concerned that there may be a risk that these exclusions would create avenues for evasion of the proposed rule.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether any of these excluded types of loans should also be covered under proposed part 1041. The Bureau further solicits comment on whether there are reasons for excluding other types of products from coverage under proposed part 1041. As noted above, the Bureau is also soliciting in the Accompanying RFI information and additional evidence to support in further assessment of whether there are other categories of loans for which lenders do not determine the consumer's ability to repay that may pose risks to consumers. The Bureau emphasizes that it may determine in a particular supervisory or enforcement matter or in a subsequent rulemaking in light of evidence available at the time that the failure to assess ability to repay when making a loan excluded from coverage here may nonetheless be an unfair or abusive act or practice.

3(e)(1) Certain Purchase Money Security Interest Loans

Proposed § 1041.3(e)(1) would exclude from coverage under proposed part 1041 loans extended for the sole and express purpose of financing a consumer's initial purchase of a good when the good being purchased secures the loan. Accordingly, loans made solely to finance the purchase of, for example, motor vehicles, televisions, household appliances, or furniture would not be subject to the consumer protections imposed by proposed part 1041 to the extent the loans are secured by the good being purchased. Proposed comment 3(e)(1)-1 explains the test for determining whether a loan is made solely for the purpose of financing a consumer's initial purchase of a good. If the item financed is not a good or if the amount financed is greater than the cost of acquiring the good, the loan is not solely for the purpose of financing the initial purchase of the good. Proposed comment 3(e)(1)-1 further explains that refinances of credit extended for the purchase of a good do not fall within this exclusion and may be subject to the requirements of proposed part 1041.

Purchase money loans are typically treated differently than non-purchase money loans under the law. The FTC's Credit Practices Rule generally prohibits consumer credit in which a lender takes a nonpossessory security interest in household goods but makes an exception for purchase money security interests. The Federal Bankruptcy Code, the UCC, and some other State laws apply different standards to purchase money security interests. This differential treatment facilitates the financing of the initial purchase of relatively expensive goods, which many consumers would not be able to afford without a purchase money loan. At this time, the Bureau has not determined that purchase money loans pose similar risks to consumers as the loans covered by proposed part 1041. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing not to cover such loans at this time. The Bureau solicits comment on this exclusion and whether there are particular types of purchase money loans that pose sufficient risk to consumers to warrant coverage under this proposed rule.

3(e)(2) Real Estate Secured Credit

Proposed § 1041.3(e)(2) would exclude from coverage under proposed part 1041 loans that are secured by real property, or by personal property used as a dwelling, and in which the lender records or perfects the security interest. The Bureau believes that even without this exemption, very few real estate secured loans would meet the coverage criteria set forth in proposed § 1041.3(b). Nonetheless, the Bureau believes a categorical exclusion is appropriate. For the most part, these loans are already subject to Federal consumer protection laws, including, for most closed-end loans, ability-to-repay requirements under Regulation Z § 1026.43. The proposed requirement that the security interest in the real estate be recorded or perfected also strongly discourages attempts to use this exclusion for sham or evasive purposes. Recording or perfecting a security interest in real estate is not a cursory exercise for a lender—recording fees are often charged and documentation is required. As proposed comment 3(e)(2)-1 explains, if the lender does not record or otherwise perfect the security interest in the property during the term of the loan, the loan does not fall under this exclusion and may be subject to the requirements of proposed part 1041. The Bureau solicits comment on this exclusion and whether there are particular types of real-estate secured loans that pose sufficient risk to consumers to warrant coverage under the proposed rule.

3(e)(3) Credit Cards

Proposed § 1041.3(e)(3) would exclude from coverage under proposed part 1041 credit card accounts meeting the definition of “credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan” in Regulation Z § 1026.2(a)(15)(ii), rather than products meeting the more general definition of credit card accounts under Regulation Z § 1026.2(a)(15). By focusing on the narrower category, the exemption would apply only to credit card accounts that are subject to the Credit CARD Act of 2009, Public Law 111-24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009) (CARD Act), which provides various heightened safeguards for consumers. These protections include a limitation that card issuers cannot open a credit card account or increase a credit line on a card account unless the card issuer considers the ability of the consumer to make the required payments under the terms of the account, as well as other protections such as limitations on fees during the first year after account opening, late fee restrictions, and a requirement that card issuers give consumers “a reasonable amount of time” to pay their bill.

The Bureau believes that, even without this exemption, few traditional credit card accounts would meet the coverage criteria set forth in proposed § 1041.3(b) other than some secured credit card accounts which may have a total cost of credit above 36 percent and provide for a leveraged payment mechanism in the form of a right of set-off. These credit card accounts are subject to the CARD Act protections discussed above. The Bureau believes that potential consumer harms related to credit card accounts are more appropriately addressed by the CARD Act, implementing regulations, and other applicable law. At the same time, if the Bureau were to craft a broad general exemption for all credit cards as generally defined under Regulation Z, the Bureau would be concerned that a lender seeking to evade the requirements of the rule might seek to structure a product in a way designed to take advantage of this exclusion.

The Bureau has therefore proposed a narrower definition focusing only on those credit cards accounts that are subject to the full range of protections under the CARD Act and its implementing regulations. Among other requirements, the regulations imposing the CARD Act prescribe a different ability-to-repay standard that lenders must follow, and the Bureau believes that the combined consumer protections governing credit card accounts subject to the CARD Act are sufficient for that type of credit. To further mitigate potential consumer risk, the Bureau considered adding a requirement that to be eligible for this exclusion, a credit card would have to be either (i) accepted upon presentation by multiple unaffiliated merchants that participate in a widely-accepted payment network, or (ii) accepted upon presentation solely for the bona fide purchase of goods or services at a particular retail merchant or group of merchants. The Bureau solicits comments on whether to exclude credit cards and, if so, whether the criteria proposed to define the exclusion are appropriate, or whether additional criteria should be added to limit the potential evasion risk identified above.

3(e)(4) Student Loans

Proposed § 1041.3(e)(4) would exclude from coverage under proposed part 1041 loans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a Federal student loan program, and private education loans. The Bureau believes that even without this exemption, very few student loans would meet the coverage criteria set forth in proposed § 1041.3(b). Nonetheless, the Bureau believes a categorical exclusion is appropriate. Federal student loans are provided to students or parents meeting eligibility criteria established by Federal law and regulation such that the protections afforded by this proposed rule would be unnecessary. Private student loans are sometimes made to students based upon their future potential ability to repay (as distinguished from their current ability), but are typically co-signed by a party with financial capacity. These loans raise discrete issues that may warrant Bureau attention at a future time, but the Bureau believes that they are not appropriately considered along with the types of loans at issue in this rulemaking. The Bureau continues to monitor the student loan servicing market for trends and developments, unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices, and to evaluate possible policy responses, including potential rulemaking. The Bureau solicits comment on whether this exclusion is appropriate.

3(e)(5) Non-Recourse Pawn Loans

Proposed § 1041.3(e)(5) generally would exclude from coverage under proposed part 1041 loans secured by pawned property in which the lender has sole physical possession and use of the pawned property for the entire term of loan, and for which the lender's sole recourse if the consumer does not redeem the pawned property is the retention and disposal of the property. Proposed comment 3(e)(5)-1 explains that if any consumer, including a co-signor or guarantor, is personally liable for the difference between the outstanding loan balance and the value of the pawned property, the loan does not fall under this exclusion and may be subject to the requirements of proposed part 1041. As discussed above in connection with proposed § 1041.2(a)(13) and below in connection with proposed §§ 1041.6, 1041.7, and 1041.10, however, a non-recourse pawn loan can, in certain circumstances, be a non-covered bridge loan that could impact restrictions on the lender with regard to a later covered short-term loans.

The Bureau believes that bona fide, non-recourse pawn loans generally pose somewhat different risks to consumers than loans covered under proposed part 1041. As described in part II, non-recourse pawn loans involve the consumer physically relinquishing control of the item securing the loan during the term of the loan. The Bureau believes that consumers may be more likely to understand and appreciate the risks associated with physically turning over an item to the lender when they are required to do so at consummation. Moreover, in most situations, the loss of a non-recourse pawned item over which the lender has sole physical possession during the term of the loan is less likely to affect the rest of the consumer's finances than is either a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security. For instance, a pawned item of this nature may be valuable to the consumer, but the consumer most likely does not rely on the pawned item for transportation to work or to pay other obligations. Otherwise, the consumer likely would not have pawned the item under these terms. Finally, because the loans are non-recourse, in the event that a consumer is unable to repay the loan, the lender must accept the pawned item as fully satisfying the debt, without further collections activity on any remaining debt obligation.

In all of these ways, pawn transactions appear to differ significantly from the secured loans that would be covered under proposed part 1041. While the loans described in proposed § 1041.3(e)(5) would not be covered loans, lenders may, as described in proposed §§ 1041.6, 1041.7, and 1041.10 be subject to restrictions on making covered loans shortly following certain non-recourse pawn loans that meet certain conditions. The Bureau solicits comment on this exclusion and whether these types of pawn loans should be subject to the consumer protections imposed by proposed part 1041.

3(e)(6) Overdraft Services and Overdraft Lines of Credit

Proposed § 1041.3(e)(6) would exclude from coverage under proposed part 1041 overdraft services on deposit accounts as defined in 12 CFR 1005.17(a), as well as payments of overdrafts pursuant to a line of credit subject to Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026. Overdraft services generally operate on a consumer's deposit account as a negative balance, where the consumer's bank processes and pays certain payment transactions for which the consumer lacks sufficient funds in the account and imposes a fee for the service as an alternative to either refusing to authorize the payment (in the case of most debit and ATM transactions and ACH payments initiated from the consumer's account) or rejecting the payment and charging a non-sufficient funds fee (in the case of other ACH payments as well as paper checks). Overdraft services have been exempted from regulation under Regulation Z under certain circumstances, and are subject to specific rules under EFTA and the Truth in Savings Act, and their respective implementing regulations. In contrast, overdraft lines of credit are separate open-end lines of credit under Regulation Z that have been linked to a consumer's deposit account to provide automatic credit draws to cover the processing of payments for which there are not sufficient funds in the deposit account.

As discussed above in part II, the Bureau is engaged in research and other activity in anticipation of a separate rulemaking regarding overdraft products and practices. Given that overdraft services and overdraft lines of credit involve complex overlays with rules regarding payment processing, deposit accounts, set-off rights, and other forms of depository account access, the Bureau believes that any discussion of whether additional regulatory protections are warranted for those two products should be reserved for that rulemaking. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to exempt both types of overdraft products from the scope of this rule, using definitional language in Regulation E to distinguish both overdraft services and overdraft lines of credit from other types of depository credit products. The Bureau solicits comment on whether additional guidance would be helpful to distinguish overdraft services and overdraft lines of credit from other products, whether that distinction is appropriate for purposes of this rulemaking, and whether the Bureau should factor particular product features or safeguards into the way it differentiates between depository credit products.

Subpart B—Short-Term Loans

In proposed § 1041.4, the Bureau proposes to identify an unfair and abusive act or practice with respect to the making of covered short-term loans pursuant to its authority to “prescribe rules . . . identifying as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.” In the Bureau's view, it appears to be both unfair and abusive for a lender to make such a loan without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. To avoid committing this unfair and abusive practice, a lender would have to reasonably determine that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. Proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 would establish a set of requirements to prevent the unlawful practice by reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. The Bureau is proposing the ability-to-repay requirements under its authority to prescribe rules for “the purpose of preventing [unfair and abusive] acts or practices.” Proposed § 1041.7 would rely on section 1022(b)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act to exempt from the ability-to-repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, as well as from the prohibition in § 1041.4 certain covered short-term loans which satisfy a set of conditions designed to avoid the harms that can result from unaffordable loans. Accordingly, lenders seeking to make covered short-term loans would have the choice, on a case by case basis, either to follow proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, or proposed § 1041.7.

The predicate for the proposed identification of an unfair and abusive act or practice in proposed § 1041.4—and thus for the prevention requirements contained in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6—is a set of preliminary findings with respect to the consumers who use storefront and online payday loans, single-payment auto title loans, and other short-term loans, and the impact on those consumers of the practice of making such loans without assessing the consumers' ability to repay. Those preliminary findings are set forth in the discussion below, hereinafter referred to as Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans. After laying out these preliminary findings, the Bureau sets forth, in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.4, its reasons for proposing to identify as unfair and abusive the practice described in proposed § 1041.4. The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of this subpart, including the intersection of the proposed interventions with existing State, tribal, and local laws and whether additional or alternative protections should be considered to address the core harms discussed below.

Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans

The Bureau is concerned that lending practices in the markets for storefront and online payday lending, single-payment vehicle title, and other short-term loans are causing harm to many consumers who use these products, including extended sequences of reborrowing, delinquency and defaults, and certain collateral harms from making unaffordable payments. This section reviews the available evidence with respect to the consumers who use payday and short-term auto title loans, their reasons for doing so, and the outcomes they experience. It also reviews the lender practices that cause these outcomes. The Bureau preliminarily finds:

• Lower-income, lower-savings consumers. Consumers who use these products tend to come from lower or moderate income households. They generally do not have any savings to fall back on, and they have very limited access to other sources of credit; indeed, typically they have sought unsuccessfully to obtain other, lower cost, credit before turning to a short-term loan.
• Consumers in financial difficulty. Some consumers turn to these products because they have experienced a sudden drop in income (“income shock”) or a large unexpected expense (“expense shock”). Other borrowers are in circumstances in which their expenses consistently outstrip their income. A sizable percentage of users report that they would have taken a loan on any terms offered.
• Loans do not function as marketed. Lenders market single-payment products as short-term loans designed to provide a bridge to the consumer's next payday or other income receipt. In practice, however, the amounts due consume such a large portion of the consumer's paycheck or other periodic income source as to be unaffordable for most consumers seeking to recover from an income or expense shock and even more so for consumers with a chronic income shortfall. Lenders actively encourage consumers either simply to pay the finance charges due and roll over the loan instead of repaying the loan in full (or effectively roll over the loan by returning to reborrow in the days after repaying the loan). Indeed, lenders are dependent upon such reborrowing for a substantial portion of their revenue and would lose money if each borrower repaid the loan when due without reborrowing.
• Very high reborrowing rates. Not surprisingly, most borrowers find it necessary to reborrow when their loan comes due or shortly after repaying their loan, as other expenses come due. This reborrowing occurs both with payday loans and single-payment vehicle title loans. Fifty percent of all new storefront payday loans are followed by at least three more loans and 33 percent are followed by six more loans. For single-payment vehicle title loans over half (56 percent) of all new loans are followed by at least three more loans, and more than a third (36 percent) are followed by six or more loans. Twenty-one percent of payday loans made to borrowers paid weekly, bi-weekly, or semi-monthly are in loan sequences of 20 loans or more and over forty percent of loans made to borrowers paid monthly are in loan sequences of comparable durations (i.e., 10 or more monthly loans).
• Consumers do not expect lengthy loan sequences. Consumers who take out a payday loan do not expect to reborrow to the extent that they do. This is especially true of those consumers who end up in extended cycles of indebtedness. Research shows that when taking out loans consumers are unable accurately to predict how long it will take them to get out of debt, and that this is even truer of consumers who have borrowed heavily in the recent past. Consumers' difficulty in this regard is based, in part, on the fact that such loans involve a basic mismatch between how they appear to function as short-term credit and how they are actually designed to function in long sequences of reborrowing. This disparity creates difficulties for consumers in estimating with any accuracy how long they will remain in debt and how much they will ultimately pay for the initial extension of credit. Research regarding consumer decision-making also helps explain why consumers end up reborrowing more than they expect. People under stress, including consumers in financial crisis, tend to become very focused on their immediate problems and think less about the future. Consumers also tend to underestimate their future expenses, and may be overly optimistic about their ability to recover from the shock they have experienced or to bring their expenses in line with their incomes.
• Very high default rates. Some consumers do succeed in repaying short-term loans without reborrowing, and others eventually repay the loan after reborrowing multiple times. But research shows that approximately 20 percent of payday loan sequences and 33 percent of single-payment vehicle title loan sequences end up with the consumer defaulting. Consumers who are delinquent or who default can become subject to often aggressive and psychologically harmful debt collection efforts. In addition, 20 percent of single-payment vehicle title loan sequences end with borrowers losing their cars or trucks to repossession. Even borrowers who eventually pay off their loans may incur penalty fees, late fees, or overdraft fees along the way, and after repaying may find themselves struggling to pay other bills or meet their basic living expenses.
• Harms occur despite existing regulation. The research indicates that these harms from payday loans and other short-term loans persist despite existing regulatory frameworks. In particular, the Bureau is concerned that caps on the amount that a consumer can borrow, rollover limitations, and short cooling-off periods still appear to leave many consumers vulnerable to the specific harms discussed above relating to reborrowing, default, and collateral harms from making unaffordable payments.

The following discussion reviews the evidence underlying each of these preliminary findings.

a. Borrower Characteristics and Circumstances of Borrowing

Borrowers who take out payday and single-payment vehicle title loans are typically low-to-moderate income consumers who are looking for quick access to cash, who have little to no savings, who often have poor credit histories, and who have limited access to other forms of credit. The desire for immediate cash may be the result of an emergency expense or an unanticipated drop in income, but many who take out payday or vehicle title loans are consumers whose living expenses routinely exceed their income.

1. Borrower Characteristics

A number of studies have focused on the characteristics of payday borrowers. For instance, the FDIC and the U.S. Census Bureau have undertaken several special supplements to the Current Population Survey (CPS Supplement); the most recent available data come from 2013. The CPS supplement found that 46 percent of payday borrowers (including storefront and online borrowers) have a family income of under $30,000. A study covering a mix of storefront and online payday borrowers similarly found that 49 percent had income of $25,000 or less. Other analyses of administrative data that include the income that borrowers reported to lenders are broadly consistent. Additionally, the Bureau found in its analysis of confidential supervisory data that 18 percent of storefront borrowers relied on Social Security or some other form of government benefits or public assistance. The FDIC study further found that payday borrowers are disproportionately Hispanic or African-American (with borrowing rates two to three times higher respectively than for non-Hispanic whites). Female-headed households are more than twice as likely as married couples to be payday borrowers.

The demographic profiles of vehicle title loan borrowers appear to be roughly comparable to the demographics of payday borrowers. Calculations from the CPS Supplement indicate that 40 percent of vehicle title borrowers have annual family incomes under $30,000. Another survey likewise found that 56 percent of title borrowers reported incomes below $30,000, compared with 60 percent for payday borrowers. As with payday borrowers, data from the CPS Supplement show vehicle title borrowers to be disproportionately African-American or Hispanic, and more likely to live in female-headed households.

Similarly, a survey of borrowers in three States conducted by academic researchers found that vehicle title borrowers were disproportionately female and minority. Over 58 percent of title borrowers were female. African-Americans were over-represented among borrowers compared to their share of the States' population at large. Hispanic borrowers were over-represented in two of the three states; however, these borrowers were underrepresented in Texas, the State with the highest proportion of Hispanic residents in the study.

Studies of payday borrowers' credit histories show both poor credit histories and recent credit-seeking activity. An academic paper that matched administrative data from one storefront payday lender to credit bureau data found that the median credit score for a payday applicant was in the bottom 15 percent of credit scores overall. The median applicant had one open credit card, but 80 percent of applicants had either no credit card or no credit available on a card. The average borrower had 5.2 credit inquiries on her credit report over the preceding 12 months before her initial application for a payday loan (three times the number for the general population), but obtained only 1.4 accounts on average. This suggests that borrowers made repeated but generally unsuccessful efforts to obtain additional other forms of credit first, and sought the payday loan as a “last resort.” They may have credit cards but likely do not have unused credit, are often delinquent on one or more cards, and have often experienced multiple overdrafts and/or NSFs on their checking accounts. A recent report analyzing credit scores of borrowers from five large storefront payday lenders provides corroborative support, finding that the average borrower had a VantageScore 3.0 score of 532 and that over 85 percent of borrowers had a score below 600, indicating high credit risk. By way of comparison, the national average Vantage Score is 669 and only 30 percent of consumers have a Vantage Score below 600.

Reports using data from a specialty consumer reporting agency indicate that online borrowers have comparable credit scores to storefront borrowers (a mean VantageScore 3.0 score of 525 versus 532 for storefront). Another study based on the data from the same specialty consumer reporting agency and an accompanying survey of online small-dollar credit borrowers reports that 79 percent of those surveyed had been denied traditional credit in the past year due to having a low or no credit score, 62 percent had already sought assistance from family and friends, and 24 percent reported having negotiated with a creditor to whom they owed money. Moreover, heavy use of online payday loans correlated with more strenuous credit-seeking: Compared to light (bottom quartile) users of online loans, heavy (top quartile) users were more likely to have been denied credit in the past year (87 percent of heavy users compared to 68 percent of light users).

Other surveys of payday borrowers add to the picture of consumers in financial distress. For example, in a survey of payday borrowers published in 2009, fewer than half reported having any savings or reserve funds. Almost a third of borrowers (31.8 percent) reported monthly debt to income payments of 30 percent or higher, and more than a third (36.4 percent) of borrowers reported that they regularly spend all the income they receive.

Similarly, a 2010 survey found that over 80 percent of payday borrowers reported making at least one late payment on a bill in the preceding three months, and approximately one quarter reported frequently paying bills late. Approximately half reported bouncing at least one check in the previous three months, and 30 percent reported doing so more than once.

Likewise, a 2012 survey found that 58 percent of payday borrowers report that they struggled to pay their bills on time. More than a third (37 percent) said they would have taken out a loan on any terms offered. This figure rises to 46 percent when the respondent rated his or her financial situation as particularly poor.

2. Circumstances of Borrowing

Several surveys have asked borrowers why they took out their loans or for what purpose they used the loan proceeds. These are challenging questions to study. Any survey that asks about past behavior or events runs some risk of recall errors. In addition, the fungibility of money makes this question more complicated. For example, a consumer who has an unexpected expense may not feel the effect fully until weeks later, depending on the timing of the unexpected expense relative to other expenses and the receipt of income. In that circumstance, a borrower may say either that she took out the loan because of the unexpected expense, or that she took out the loan to cover regular expenses. Perhaps because of this difficulty, results across surveys are somewhat inconsistent, with one finding high levels of unexpected expenses, while others find that payday loans are used primarily to pay for regular expenses.

In a 2007 survey of payday borrowers, the most common reason cited for taking out a loan was “an unexpected expense that could not be postponed,” with 71 percent of respondents strongly agreeing with this reason and 16 percent somewhat agreeing.

A 2012 survey of payday loan borrowers, on the other hand, found that 69 percent of respondents took their first payday loan to cover a recurring expense, such as utilities, rent, or credit card bills, and only 16 percent took their first loan for an unexpected expense.

Another 2012 survey of over 1,100 users of alternative small-dollar credit products, including pawn, payday, auto title, deposit advance products, and non-bank installment loans, asked separate questions about what borrowers used the loan proceeds for and what precipitated the loan. Responses were reported for “very short term” and “short term” credit; very short term referred to payday, pawn, and deposit advance products. Respondents could report up to three reasons for what precipitated the loan; the most common reason given for very short term borrowing (approximately 37 percent of respondents) was “I had a bill or payment due before my paycheck arrived,” which the authors of the report on the survey results interpret as a mismatch in the timing of income and expenses. Unexpected expenses were cited by 30 percent of very short term borrowers, and approximately 27 percent reported unexpected drops in income. Approximately 34 percent reported that their general living expenses were consistently more than their income. Respondents could also report up to three uses for the funds; the most common answers related to paying for routine expenses, with over 40 percent reporting the funds were used to “pay utility bills,” over 40 percent reporting the funds were used to pay “general living expenses,” and over 20 percent saying the funds were used to pay rent. Of all the reasons for borrowing, consistent shortfalls in income relative to expenses was the response most highly correlated with consumers reporting repeated usage or rollovers.

A recent survey of 768 online payday users drawn from a large administrative database of payday borrowers looked at similar questions, and compared the answers of heavy and light users of online loans. Based on borrowers' self-reported borrowing history, borrowers were segmented into heavy users (users with borrowing frequency in the top quartile of the dataset) and light users (bottom quartile). Heavy users were much more likely to report that they “[i]n past three months, often or always ran out of money before the end of the month” (60 percent versus 34 percent). In addition, heavy users were nearly twice as likely as light users to state their primary reason for seeking their most recent payday loan as being to pay for “regular expenses such as utilities, car payment, credit card bill, or prescriptions” (49 percent versus 28 percent). Heavy users were less than half as likely as light users to state their reason as being to pay for an “unexpected expense or emergency” (21 percent versus 43 percent). Notably, 18 percent of heavy users gave as their primary reason for seeking a payday loan online that they “had a storefront loan, needed another [loan]” as compared to just over 1 percent of light users.

b. Lender Practices

The business model of lenders who make payday and single-payment vehicle title loans is predicated on the lenders' ability to secure extensive reborrowing. As described in the Background section, the typical storefront payday loan has a principal amount of $350, and the consumer pays a typical fee of 15 percent of the principal amount. That means that if a consumer takes out such a loan and repays the loan when it is due without reborrowing, the typical loan would produce roughly $50 in revenue to the lender. Lenders would thus require a large number of “one-and-done” consumers to cover their overhead and acquisition costs and generate profits. However, because lenders are able to induce a large percentage of borrowers to repeatedly reborrow, lenders have built a model in which the typical store has, as discussed in part II, two or three employees serving around 500 customers per year. Online lenders do not have the same overhead costs, but they have been willing to pay substantial acquisition costs to lead generators and to incur substantial fraud losses because of their ability to secure more than a single fee from their borrowers.

The Bureau uses the term “reborrow” to refer to situations in which consumers either roll over a loan (which means they pay a fee to defer payment of the principal for an additional period of time), or take out a new loan within a short period time following a previous loan. Reborrowing can occur concurrently with repayment in back-to-back transactions or can occur shortly thereafter. The Bureau believes that reborrowing often indicates that the previous loan was beyond the consumer's ability to repay and meet the consumer's other major financial obligations and basic living expenses. As discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.6, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to consider loans to be reborrowings when the second loan is taken out within 30 days of the consumer being indebted on a previous loan. While the Bureau's 2014 Data Point used a 14-day period and the Small Business Review Panel Outline used a 60-day period, the Bureau is using a 30-day period in this proposal to align with consumer expense cycles, which are typically a month in length. This is designed to account for the fact that where repaying a loan causes a shortfall, the consumer may seek to return during the same expense cycle to get funds to cover downstream expenses. Unless otherwise noted, this section, Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, uses a 30-day period to determine whether a loan is part of a loan sequence.

The majority of lending revenue earned by storefront payday lenders and lenders that make single-payment vehicle title loans comes from borrowers who reborrow multiple times and become enmeshed in long loan sequences. Based on the Bureau's data analysis, more than half of payday loans are in sequences that contain 10 loans or more. Looking just at loans made to borrowers who are paid weekly, bi-weekly, or semi-monthly, approximately 21 percent of loans are in sequences that are 20 loans or longer.

As discussed below, the Bureau believes that both the short term and the single-payment structure of these loans contributes to the long sequences the borrowers take out. Various lender practices exacerbate the problem by marketing to borrowers who are particularly likely to wind up in long sequences of loans, by failing to screen out borrowers likely to wind up in long-term debt or to establish guardrails to avoid long-term indebtedness, and by actively encouraging borrowers to continue to roll over or reborrow.

1. Loan Structure

The single-payment structure and short duration of these loans makes them difficult to repay: within the space of a single income or expense cycle, a consumer with little to no savings cushion and who has borrowed to meet an unexpected expense or income shortfall, or who chronically runs short of funds, is unlikely to have the available cash needed to repay the full amount borrowed plus the finance charge on the loan when it is due and to cover other ongoing expenses. This is true for loans of a very short duration regardless of how the loan may be categorized. Loans of this type, as they exist in the market today, typically take the form of single-payment loans, including payday loans, and vehicle title loans, though other types of credit products are possible. The focus of the Bureau's research has been on payday and vehicle title loans, so the discussion in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans centers on those types of products.

The size of single-payment loan repayment amounts (measured as loan principal plus finance charges owed) relative to the borrower's next paycheck gives some sense of how difficult repayment may be. The Bureau's storefront payday loan data shows that the average borrower being paid on a bi-weekly basis would need to devote 37 percent of her bi-weekly paycheck to repaying the loan. Single-payment vehicle title borrowers face an even greater challenge. In the data analyzed by the Bureau, the median borrower's payment on a 30-day loan is equal to 49 percent of monthly income.

2. Marketing

The general positioning of short-term products in marketing and advertising materials as a solution to an immediate liquidity challenge attracts consumers facing these problems, encouraging them to focus on short-term relief rather than the likelihood that they are taking on a new longer-term debt. Lenders position the purpose of the loan as being for use “until next payday” or to “tide over” the consumer until she receives her next paycheck. These types of product characterizations encourage unrealistic, overly optimistic thinking that repaying the loan will be easy, that the cash short-fall will not recur at the time the loan is due or shortly thereafter, and that the typical payday loan is experienced by consumers as a short-term obligation, all of which lessen the risk in the consumer's mind that the loan will become a long-term debt cycle. Indeed, one study reporting consumer focus group feedback noted that some participants reported that the marketing made it seem like payday loans were “a way to get a cash infusion without creating an additional bill.”

In addition to presenting loans as short-term solutions, rather than potentially long-term obligations, lender advertising often focuses on how quickly and easily consumers can obtain a loan. A recent academic paper reviewing the advertisements of Texas storefront and online payday and vehicle title lenders found that speed of getting a loan is the most frequently advertised feature in both online (100 percent) and storefront (50 percent) payday and title loans. Advertising that focuses on immediacy and speed may exploit borrowers' sense of urgency. Indeed, the names of many payday and vehicle title lenders include the words (in different spellings) “speedy,” “cash,” “easy,” and “quick,” emphasizing their rapid and simple loan funding.

3. Failure To Assess Ability To Repay

As discussed in part II, storefront payday, online payday, and vehicle title lenders generally gather some basic information about borrowers before making a loan. They normally collect income information, although that may just be self-reported or “stated” income. Payday lenders collect information to ensure the borrower has a checking account, and vehicle title lenders need information about the vehicle that will provide the security for the loan. Some lenders access consumer reports prepared by specialty consumer reporting agencies and engage in sophisticated screening of applicants, and at least some lenders turn down the majority of applicants to whom they have not previously made loans.

One of the primary purposes of this screening, however, is to avoid fraud and other “first payment defaults,” not to ensure that borrowers will be able to repay the loan without reborrowing. These lenders generally do not obtain information about the borrower's existing obligations or living expenses and do not prevent those with expenses chronically exceeding income, or those who have suffered from an income or expense shock from which they need substantially more time to recover than the term of the loan, from taking on additional obligations in the form of payday or similar loans. Thus, lenders' failure to assess the borrower's ability to repay the loan permits those consumers who have the least ability to repay the loans, and consequently are the most likely to reborrow, to obtain them. Lending to borrowers who cannot repay their loans would generally not be profitable in a traditional lending market, but as described elsewhere in this section, the factors that funnel consumers into cycles of repeat reborrowing turn the traditional model on its head by creating incentives for lenders to actually want borrowers who cannot afford to repay and instead reborrow repeatedly. Although industry stakeholders have argued that lenders making short-term loans already take steps to assess “ability to repay” and will always do so out of economic self-interest, the Bureau believes that this refers narrowly to whether the consumer will default up front on the loan, rather than whether the consumer has the capacity to repay the loan without reborrowing and while meeting other financial obligations and basic living expenses. The fact that lenders often do not perform additional underwriting when borrowers are rolling over a loan or are returning to borrow again soon after repaying a prior loan further evidences that lenders do not see reborrowing as a sign of borrowers' financial distress or as an outcome to be avoided.

4. Encouraging Long Loan Sequences

After lenders attract borrowers in financial crisis, encourage them to think of the loans as a short-term solution, and fail to screen out those for whom the loans are likely to become a long-term debt cycle, lenders then actively encourage borrowers to reborrow and continue to be indebted rather than pay down or pay off their loans. Although storefront payday lenders typically take a post-dated check which could be presented in a manner timed to coincide with deposit of the borrower's paycheck or government benefits, lenders usually encourage or even require borrowers to come back to the store to redeem the check and pay in cash. When the borrowers return, they are typically presented by lender employees with two salient options: Repay the loan in full, or pay a fee to roll over the loan (where permitted under State law). If the consumer does not return, the lender will proceed to attempt to collect by cashing the check. On a $300 loan at a typical charge of $15 per $100 borrowed, the cost to defer the due date for another 14 days until the next payday is $45, while repaying in full would cost $345, which may leave the borrower with insufficient remaining income to cover expenses over the ensuing month and therefore prompt reborrowing. Requiring repayment in person gives staff at the stores the opportunity to frame for borrowers a choice between repaying in full or just paying the finance charge and to encourage them to choose the less immediately painful option of paying just the finance charge. Based on its experience from supervising payday lenders, the Bureau believes that store employees are generally incentivized to maximize a store's loan volume and understand that reborrowing is crucial to achieving that goal.

The Bureau's research shows that payday borrowers rarely reborrow a smaller amount than the initial loan, which would effectively amortize their loans by reducing the principal amount owed over time, thereby reducing their costs and the likelihood that they will need to take seven or ten loans out in a loan sequence. Lenders contribute to this outcome when they encourage borrowers to pay the minimum amount and roll over or reborrow the full amount of the earlier loan. In fact, as discussed in part II, some online payday loans automatically roll over at the end of the loan term unless the consumer takes affirmative action in advance of the due date such as notifying the lender in writing at least 3 days before the due date. Single-payment vehicle title borrowers, or at least those who ultimately repay rather than default, are more likely than payday borrowers to reduce the size of loans taken out in quick succession. This may reflect the effects of State laws regulating vehicle title loans that require some reduction in loan size across a loan sequence. It may also be influenced by the larger median size of vehicle title loans, which is $694, as compared to $350 median loan size of payday loans.

Lenders also actively encourage borrowers who they know are struggling to repay their loans to roll over and continue to borrow. In supervisory examinations and in an enforcement action, the Bureau has found evidence that lenders maintain training materials that promote borrowing by struggling borrowers. In the enforcement matter, the Bureau found that if a borrower did not repay in full or pay to roll over the loan on time, personnel would initiate collections. Store personnel or collectors would then offer new loans as a source of relief from the collections activities. This “cycle of debt” was depicted graphically as part of the standard “loan process” in the company's new hire training manual. The Bureau is aware of similar practices in the vehicle title lending market, where store employees offer borrowers additional cash during courtesy calls and when calling about past-due accounts, and company training materials instruct employees to “turn collections calls into sales calls” and encourage delinquent borrowers to refinance to avoid default and repossession of their vehicles.

It also appears that lenders do little to affirmatively promote the use of “off ramps” or other alternative repayment options, when those are required by law to be available. Such alternative repayment plans could help at least some borrowers avoid lengthy cycles of reborrowing. By discouraging the use of repayment plans, lenders can make it more likely that such consumers will instead reborrow. Lenders that are members of one of the two national trade associations for storefront payday lenders have agreed to offer an extended payment plan to borrowers but only if the borrower makes a request at least one day prior to the date on which the loan is due. (The second national trade association reports that its members provide an extended payment plan option but details on that option are not available.) In addition, about 20 States require payday lenders to offer repayment plans to borrowers who encounter difficulty in repaying payday loans. The usage rate of these repayment plans varies widely but in all cases is relatively low. One explanation for the low take-up rate on these repayment plans may be lender disparagement of the plans or lenders' failure to promote their availability. The Bureau's supervisory examinations uncovered evidence that one or more payday lenders train employees not to mention repayment plans until after the employees have offered renewals, and only then to mention repayment plans if borrowers specifically ask about them.

5. Payment Mechanisms and Vehicle Title

Where lenders collect payments through post-dated checks, ACH authorizations, and/or obtain security interests in borrowers' vehicles, these mechanisms also can be used to encourage borrowers to reborrow to avoid negative consequences for their transportation or bank account. For example, consumers may feel significantly increased pressure to return to a storefront to roll over a payday or vehicle title loan that includes such features rather than risk suffering vehicle repossession or fees in connection with an attempt to deposit the consumer's post-dated check, such as an overdraft fee or an NSF fees from the bank and returned item fee from the lender if the check were to bounce. The pressure can be especially acute when the lender obtains vehicle security.

And in cases in which consumers do ultimately default on their loans, these mechanisms often increase the degree of harm suffered due to consumers losing their transportation, from account and lender fees, and sometimes from closure of their bank accounts. As discussed in more detail below in Market Concerns—Payments, in its research the Bureau has found that 36 percent of borrowers who took out online payday or payday installment loans and had at least one failed payment during an eighteen-month period had their checking accounts closed by the bank by the end of that period.

c. Patterns of Lending and Extended Loan Sequences

The characteristics of the borrowers, the circumstances of borrowing, the structure of the short-term loans, and the practices of the lenders together lead to dramatic negative outcomes for many payday and vehicle title borrowers. There is strong evidence that a meaningful share of borrowers who take out payday and single-payment vehicle title loans end up with very long sequences of loans, and the loans made to borrowers with these negative outcomes make up a majority of all the loans made by these lenders.

Long loan sequences lead to very high total costs of borrowing. Each single-payment loan carries the same cost as the initial loan that the borrower took out. For a storefront borrower who takes out the average-sized payday loan of $350 with a typical fee of $15 per $100, each reborrowing means paying fees of $45. After just three reborrowings, the borrower will have paid $140 simply to defer payment of the original principal amount by an additional six weeks to three months.

The cost of reborrowing for auto title borrowers is even more dramatic given the higher price and larger size of those loans. The Bureau's data indicates that the median loan size for single-payment vehicle title loans is $694. One study found that the most common APR charged on the typical 30-day title loan is 300 percent, which equates to a rate $25 per $100 borrowed, which is a common State limit. A typical reborrowing thus means that the consumer pays a fee of around $175. After just three reborrowings, a consumer will typically have paid about $525 simply to defer payment of the original principal amount by three additional months.

Evidence for the prevalence of long sequences of payday and auto title loans comes from the Bureau's own work, from analysis by independent researchers and analysts commissioned by industry, and from statements by industry stakeholders. The Bureau has published several analyses of storefront payday loan borrowing. Two of these have focused on the length of loan sequences that borrowers take out. In these publications, the Bureau defined a loan sequence as a series of loans where each loan was taken out either on the day the prior loan was repaid or within some number of days from when the loan was repaid. The Bureau's 2014 Data Point used a 14-day window to define a sequence of loans. That data has been further refined in the CFPB Report on Supplemental Findings and shows that when a borrower who is not currently in a loan sequence takes out a payday loan, borrowers wind up taking out at least four loans in a row before repaying 43 percent of the time, take out at least seven loans in a row before repaying 27 percent of the time, and take out at least 10 loans in a row before repaying 19 percent of the time. In the CFPB Report on Supplemental Findings, the Bureau re-analyzed the data using 30-day and 60-day definitions of sequences. The results are similar, although using longer windows leads to longer sequences of more loans. Using the 30-day definition of a sequence, 50 percent of loan sequences contain at least four loans, 33 percent of sequences contain at least seven loans, and 24 percent of sequences contain at least 10 loans. A borrower who takes out a fourth loan in a sequence has a 66 percent likelihood of taking out at least three more loans, of a total sequence length of seven loans, a 48 percent likelihood of taking out at least 6 more loans, for a total sequence length of 10 loans.

These findings are mirrored in other analyses. During the SBREFA process, a SER submitted an analysis prepared by Charles River Associates (CRA) of loan data from several small storefront payday lenders. Using a 60-day sequence definition, CRA found patterns of borrowing very similar to those the Bureau found. Compared to the Bureau's results using a 60-day sequence definition, in the CRA analysis there were more loans where the borrower defaulted on the first loan or repaid without reborrowing (roughly 44 percent versus 25 percent), and fewer loans that had 11 or more loans in the sequence, but otherwise the patterns were nearly identical.

Similarly, in an analysis funded by an industry research organization, researchers found a mean sequence length, using a 30-day sequence definition, of nearly seven loans. This is slightly higher than the mean 30-day sequence length in the Bureau's analysis (5.9 loans).

Analysis of a multi-lender, multi-year dataset by a research group affiliated with a specialty consumer reporting agency found that over a period of approximately four years the average borrower had at least one sequence of 9 loans; that 25 percent of borrowers had at least one loan sequence of 11 loans; and that 10 percent of borrowers had at least one loan sequence of 22 loans. Looking at these same borrowers for a period of 11 months—one month longer than the duration analyzed by the Bureau—the researchers found that on average the longest sequence these borrowers experienced over the 11 months was 5.3 loans, that 25 percent of borrowers had a sequence of at least 7 loans, and that 10 percent of borrowers had a sequence of at least 12 loans. This research group also identified a core of users with extremely persistent borrowing. They found that 30 percent of borrowers who took out a loan in the first month of the four-year period also took out a loan in the last month. The median time in debt for this group of extremely persistent borrowers was over 1,000 days, more than half of the four-year period. The median borrower in this group of extremely persistent borrowers had at least one loan sequence of 23 loans long or longer (nearly two years for borrowers paid monthly). Perhaps most alarming, nine percent of this group borrowed continuously for the entire period.

The Bureau has also analyzed single-payment vehicle title loans using the same basic methodology. Using a 30-day definition of loan sequences, the Bureau found that short-term (30-day) single-payment vehicle title loans had loan sequences that were similar to payday loans. More than half, 56 percent, of single-payment vehicle title sequences contained at least four loans; 36 percent contained seven or more loans; and 23 percent had 10 or more loans. Other sources on vehicle title lending are more limited than for payday lending, but are generally consistent. For instance, the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions publishes a biennial report on 30-day single-payment vehicle title loans. The most recent report shows very similar results to those the Bureau found in its research, with 49 percent of borrowers taking out four or more loans in row, 35 percent taking out more than seven loans in a row, and 25 percent taking out more than 10 loans in a row.

In addition to direct measures of the length of loan sequences, there is ample indirect evidence from the cumulative number of loans that borrowers take out that borrowers are often getting stuck in a long-term debt cycle. The Bureau has measured total borrowing by payday borrowers in two ways. In one study, the Bureau took a snapshot of borrowers in lenders' portfolios at a point in time (measured as borrowing in a particular month) and tracked them for an additional 11 months (for a total of 12 months) to assess overall loan use. This study found that the median borrowing level was 10 loans over the course of a year, and more than half of the borrowers had loans outstanding for more than half of the year. In another study, the Bureau measured the total number of loans taken out by borrowers beginning new loan sequences. It found that these borrowers had lower total borrowing than borrowers who may have been mid-sequence at the beginning of the period, but the median number of loans for the new borrowers was six loans over a slightly shorter (11-month) time period. Research by others finds similar results, with average or median borrowing, using various data sources and various samples, of six to 13 loans per year.

Given differences in the regulatory context and the overall nature of the market, less information is available on online lending than storefront lending. Borrowers who take out payday loans online are likely to change lenders more frequently than storefront borrowers, which makes measuring the duration of loan sequences much more challenging. The limited information that is available suggests that online borrowers take out fewer loans than storefront borrowers, but that borrowing is highly likely to be under-counted. A report commissioned by an online lender trade association, using data from three online lenders making single-payment payday loans, reported an average loan length of 20 days and average days in debt per year of 73 days. The report combines medians of each statistic across the three lenders, making interpretation difficult, but these findings suggest that borrowers take out three to four loans per year at these lenders.

Additional analysis is available based on the records of a specialty consumer reporting agency. These show similar loans per borrower, 2.9, but over a multi-year period. These loans, however, are not primarily single-payment payday loans. A small number are installment loans, while most are “hybrid” loans that typically have a duration of roughly four pay cycles. In addition, this statistic likely understates usage because online lenders may not report all of the loans they make, and some may only report the first loan they make to a borrower. Borrowers may also be more likely to change lenders online, and many lenders do not report to the specialty consumer reporting agency that provided the data for the analysis, so that when borrowers change lenders it may often be the case that their subsequent loans are not in the data analyzed.

d. Consumer Expectations and Understanding of Loan Sequences

Extended sequences of loans raise concerns about the market for short-term loans. This concern is exacerbated by the available empirical evidence regarding consumer understanding of such loans, which strongly indicates that borrowers who take out long sequences of payday loans and vehicle title loans do not anticipate those long sequences.

Measuring consumers' expectations about reborrowing is inherently challenging. When answering survey questions about loan repayment, there is the risk that borrowers may conflate repaying an individual loan with completing an extended sequence of borrowing. Asking borrowers retrospective questions about their expectations at the time they started borrowing is likely to suffer from recall problems, as people have difficulty remembering what they expected at some time in the past. The recall problem is likely to be compounded by respondents tending to want to avoid saying that they made a mistake. Asking about expectations for future borrowing may also be imperfect, as some consumers may not be thinking explicitly about how many times they will roll a loan over when taking out their first loan. Asking the question may cause people to think about it more than they otherwise would have.

Two studies have asked payday and vehicle title borrowers at the time they took out their loans about their expectations about reborrowing, either the behavior of the average borrower or their own borrowing, and compared their responses with actual repayment behavior of the overall borrower population. One 2009 survey of payday borrowers found that over 40 percent of borrowers thought that the average borrower would have a loan outstanding for only two weeks. Another 25 percent responded with four weeks. Translating weeks into loans, the four-week response likely reflects borrowers who believe the average number of loans a borrower take out before repaying is one loan or two loans, depending on the mix of respondents paid bi-weekly or monthly. The report did not provide data on actual reborrowing, but based on analysis by the Bureau and others, this suggests that respondents were, on average, somewhat optimistic about reborrowing behavior. However, it is difficult to be certain that some survey respondents did not conflate the time loans are outstanding with the contract term of individual loans, because the researchers asked borrowers, “What's your best guess of how long it takes the average person to pay back in full a $300 payday loan?”, which some borrowers may have interpreted to refer to the specific loan being taken out, and not subsequent rollovers. Borrowers' beliefs about their own reborrowing behavior could also vary from their beliefs about average borrowing behavior by others.

In a study of vehicle title borrowers, researchers surveyed borrowers about their expectations about how long it would take to repay the loan. The report did not have data on borrowing, but compared the responses with the distribution of repayment times reported by the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions and found that borrowers were slightly optimistic, on average, in their predictions.

The two studies just described compared borrowers' predictions of average borrowing with overall average borrowing levels, which is only informative about how accurate borrowers' predictions are on average. A 2014 study by Columbia University Professor Ronald Mann surveyed borrowers at the point at which they were borrowing about their expectations for repaying their loans and compared their responses with their subsequent actual borrowing behavior, using loan records to measure how accurate their predictions were. The results described in Mann's report, combined with subsequent analysis that Professor Mann shared with Bureau staff, show the following.

First, borrowers are very poor at predicting long sequences of loans. Fewer borrowers expected to experience long sequences of loans than actually did experience long sequences. Only 10 percent of borrowers expected to be in debt for more than 70 days (five two-week loans), and only five percent expected to be in debt for more than 110 days (roughly eight two-week) loan, yet the actual numbers were substantially higher. Indeed, approximately 12 percent of borrowers remained in debt after 200 days (14 two-week loans). Borrowers who experienced long sequences of loans had not expected those long sequences when they made their initial borrowing decision; in fact they had not predicted that their sequences would be longer than borrowers overall. And while some borrowers did expect long sequences, those borrowers did not in fact actually have unusually long sequences; as Mann notes, “it appears that those who predict long borrowing periods are those most likely to err substantially in their predictions.”

Second, Mann's analysis shows that many borrowers do not appear to learn from their past borrowing experience. Those who had borrowed the most in the past did not do a better job of predicting their future use; they were actually more likely to underestimate how long it would take them to repay fully. As Mann noted in his paper, “heavy users of the product tend to be those that understand least what is likely to happen to them.”

Finally, Mann found that borrowers' predictions about the need to reborrow at least once versus not at all were optimistic, with 60 percent of borrowers predicting they would not roll over or reborrow within one pay cycle and only 40 percent actually not doing so.

A trade association commissioned two surveys which suggest that consumers are able to predict their borrowing patterns. These surveys, which were very similar to each other, were of storefront payday borrowers who had recently repaid a loan and had not taken another loan within a specified period of time, and were conducted in 2013 and 2016. Of these borrowers, 94 to 96 percent reported that when they took out the loan they understood well or very well “how long it would take to completely repay the loan” and a similar percentage reported that they, in fact, were able to repay their loan in the amount of time they expected. These surveys suffers from the challenge of asking people to describe their expectations about borrowing at some time in the past, which may lead to recall problems, as described earlier. It is also unclear what the borrowers understood the phrase “completely repay” to mean—whether they took it to mean the specific loan they had recently repaid or the original loan that ultimately led to the loan they repaid. For these reasons, the Bureau does not believe that these studies undermine the evidence above indicating that consumers are generally not able to predict accurately the number of times that they will need to reborrow, particularly with respect to long-term reborrowing.

There are several factors that may contribute to consumers' lack of understanding of the risk of reborrowing that will result from loans that prove unaffordable. As explained above in the section on lender practices, there is a mismatch between how these products are marketed and described by industry and how they operate in practice. Although lenders present the loans as a temporary bridge option, only a minority of payday loans are repaid without any reborrowing. These loans often produce lengthy cycles of rollovers or new loans taken out shortly after the prior loans are repaid. Not surprisingly, many borrowers are not able to tell when they take out the first loan how long their cycles will last and how much they will ultimately pay for the initial disbursement of cash. Even borrowers who believe they will be unable to repay the loan immediately—and therefore expect some amount of reborrowing—are generally unable to predict accurately how many times they will reborrow and at what cost. As noted above, this is especially true for borrowers who reborrow many times.

Moreover, research suggests that financial distress could also be a factor in borrowers' decision making. As discussed above, payday and vehicle title loan borrowers are often in financial distress at the time they take out the loans. Their long-term financial condition is typically very poor. For example, as described above, studies find that both storefront and online payday borrowers have little to no savings and very low credit scores, which is a sign of overall poor financial condition. They may have credit cards but likely do not have unused credit, are often delinquent on one or more cards, and have often experienced multiple overdrafts and/or NSFs on their checking accounts. They typically have tried and failed to obtain other forms of credit before turning to a payday lender or they otherwise may perceive that such other options would not be available to them and that there is no time to comparison shop when facing an imminent liquidity crisis.

Research has shown that when people are under pressure they tend to focus on the immediate problem they are confronting and discount other considerations, including the longer-term implications of their actions. Researchers sometimes refer to this phenomenon as “tunneling,” evoking the tunnel-vision decision making people can engage in. Consumers experiencing a financial crisis deciding on whether to take out a loan are a prime example of this behavior. Even when consumers are not facing a crisis, research shows that they tend to underestimate their near-term expenditures, and, when estimating how much financial “slack” they will have in the future, discount even the expenditures they do expect to incur. Finally, regardless of their financial situation, research suggests consumers may generally have unrealistic expectations about their future earnings, their future expenses, and their ability to save money to repay future obligations. Research documents that consumers in many contexts demonstrate “optimism bias” about future events and their own future performance.

Each of these behavioral biases, which are exacerbated when facing a financial crisis, contribute to consumers who are considering taking out a payday loan or single-payment vehicle title loan failing to assess accurately the likely duration of indebtedness, and, consequently, the total costs they will pay as a result of taking out the loan. Tunneling may cause consumers not to focus sufficiently on the future implications of taking out a loan. To the extent that consumers do comprehend what will happen when the loan comes due, underestimation of future expenditures and optimism bias will cause them to misunderstand the likelihood of repeated reborrowing due to their belief that they are more likely to be able to repay the loan without defaulting or reborrowing than they actually are. And consumers who recognize at origination that they will have difficulty paying back the loan and that they may need to roll the loan over or reborrow may still underestimate the likelihood that they will wind up rolling over or reborrowing multiple times and the high cost of doing so.

Regardless of the underlying explanation, the empirical evidence indicates that borrowers do not expect to be in very long sequences and are overly optimistic about the likelihood that they will avoid rolling over or reborrowing their loans at all.

e. Delinquency and Default

In addition to the harm caused by unanticipated loan sequences, the Bureau is concerned that many borrowers suffer other harms from unaffordable loans in the form of the costs that come from being delinquent or defaulting on the loans. Many borrowers, when faced with unaffordable payments, will be late in making loan payments, and may ultimately cease making payments altogether and default on their loans. They may take out multiple loans before defaulting—69 percent of payday loan sequences that end in default are multi-loan sequences in which the borrower has rolled over or reborrowed at least once before defaulting—either because they are simply delaying the inevitable or because their financial situation deteriorates over time to the point where they become delinquent and eventually default rather than continuing to pay additional reborrowing fees.

While the Bureau is not aware of any data directly measuring the number of late payments across the industry, studies of what happens when payments are so late that the lenders deposit the consumers' original post-dated checks suggest that late payment rates are relatively high. For example, one study of payday borrowers in Texas found that in 10 percent of all loans, the post-dated checks were deposited and bounced. Looking at the borrower level, the study found that half of all borrowers had a check deposited and bounce over the course of the year following their first payday loan. An analysis of data collected in North Dakota showed a lower, but still high, rate of lenders depositing checks that subsequently bounced or attempting to collect loan payment via an ACH payment request that failed. It showed that 39 percent of new borrowers experienced a failed loan payment of this type in the year following their first payday loans, and 46 percent did so in the first two years following their first payday loan. In a public filing, one large storefront payday lender reported a lower rate, 6.5 percent, of depositing checks, of which nearly two-thirds were returned for insufficient funds. In Bureau analysis of ACH payments initiated by online payday and payday installment lenders, 50 percent of online borrowers had at least one overdraft or non-sufficient funds transaction in connection with their loans over an 18 month period. These borrowers' depository accounts incurred an average total of $185 in fees.

Bounced checks and failed ACH payments can be quite costly for borrowers. The median bank NSF fee is $34, which is equivalent to the cost of a rollover on a $300 storefront loan. If the lender makes repeated attempts to collect using these methods, this leads to repeated fees. The Bureau's research indicates that when one attempt fails, online payday lenders make a second attempt to collect 75 percent of the time but are unsuccessful in 70 percent of those cases. The failure rate increases with each subsequent attempt.

In addition to incurring NSF fees from a bank, in many cases when a check bounces the consumer can be charged a returned check fee by the lender; late fees are restricted in some but not all States.

Default can also be quite costly for borrowers. These costs vary with the type of loan and the channel through which the borrower took out the loan. As noted, default may come after a lender has made repeated attempts to collect from the borrower's deposit account, such that a borrower may ultimately find it necessary to close the account, or the borrower's bank or credit union may close the account if the balance is driven negative and the borrower is unable for an extended period of time to return the balance to positive. And borrowers of vehicle title loans stand to suffer the greatest harm from default, as it may lead to the repossession of their vehicle. In addition to the direct costs of the loss of an asset, this can seriously disrupt people's lives and put at risk their ability to remain employed.

Default rates on individual payday loans appear at first glance to be fairly low. This figure is three percent in the data the Bureau has analyzed. But because so many borrowers respond to the unaffordability of these loans by reborrowing in sequences of loans rather than by defaulting immediately, a more meaningful measure of default is the share of loan sequences that end in default. The Bureau's data show that, using a 30-day sequence definition, 20 percent of loan sequences end in default. A recent report based on a multi-lender dataset showed similar results, with a 3 percent loan-level default rate and a 16 percent sequence-level default rate.

Other researchers have found similarly high levels of default at the borrower level. One study of Texas borrowers found that 4.7 percent of loans were charged off, while 30 percent of borrowers had a loan charged off in their first year of borrowing.

Default rates on single-payment vehicle title loans are higher than those on storefront payday loans. In the data analyzed by the Bureau, the default rate on all vehicle title loans is 6 percent, and the sequence-level default rate is 33 percent. The Bureau's research suggests that title lenders repossess a vehicle slightly more than half the time when a borrower defaults on a loan. In the data the Bureau has analyzed, three percent of all single-payment vehicle title loans lead to repossession, which represents approximately 50 percent of loans on which the borrower defaulted. At the sequence level, 20 percent of sequences end with repossession. In other words, one in five borrowers is unable to escape debt without losing their car.

Borrowers of all types of covered loans are also likely to be subject to collection efforts. The Bureau observed in its consumer complaint data that from November 2013 through December 2015 approximately 24,000 debt collection complaints had payday loan as the underlying debt. More than 10 percent of the complaints the Bureau has received about debt collection stem from payday loans. These collections efforts can include harmful and harassing conduct such as repeated phone calls from collectors to the borrower's home or place of work, as well as in-person visits to consumers' homes and worksites. Some of this conduct, depending on facts and circumstances, may be illegal. Aggressive calling to the borrower's workplace can put at risk the borrower's employment and jeopardize future earnings. Many of these practices can cause psychological distress and anxiety in borrowers who are already under financial pressure. In addition, the Bureau's enforcement and supervisory examination processes have uncovered evidence of numerous illegal collection practices by payday lenders. These include: Illegal third-party calls; false threats to add new fees; false threats of legal action or referral to a non-existent in-house “collections department”; and deceptive messages regarding non-existent “special promotions” to induce borrowers to return calls.

Even if a vehicle title borrower does not have her vehicle repossessed, the threat of repossession in itself may cause harm to borrowers. It may cause them to forgo other essential expenditures in order to make the payment and avoid repossession. And there may be psychological harm in addition to the stress associated with the possible loss of a vehicle. Lenders recognize that consumers often have a “pride of ownership” in their vehicle and, as discussed above in part II, one or more lenders exceed their maximum loan amount guidelines and consider the vehicle's sentimental or use value to the consumer when assessing the amount of funds they will lend.

The potential impacts of the loss of a vehicle depend on the transportation needs of the borrower's household and the available transportation alternatives. According to two surveys of vehicle title loan borrowers, 15 percent of all borrowers report that they would have no way to get to work or school if they lost their vehicle to repossession. More than one-third (35 percent) of borrowers pledge the title to the only working vehicle in the household (Pew 2015). Even those with a second vehicle or the ability to get rides from friends or take public transportation would presumably experience significant inconvenience or even hardship from the loss of a vehicle.

The Bureau analyzed online payday and payday installments lenders' attempts to withdraw payments from borrowers' deposit accounts, and found that six percent of payment attempts that were not preceded by a failed payment attempt themselves fail. An additional six percent succeed despite a lack of sufficient available funds in the borrower's account because the borrower's depository institution makes the payment as an overdraft, in which case the borrower was also likely charged a similar fee. Default rates are more difficult to determine, but 36 percent of checking accounts with failed online loan payments are subsequently closed. This provides a rough measure of default on these loans, but more importantly demonstrates the harm borrowers suffer in the process of defaulting on these loans.

The risk that they will default and the costs associated with default are likely to be under-appreciated by borrowers when obtaining a payday or vehicle title loan. Consumers are unlikely, when deciding whether to take out a loan, to be thinking about what will happen if they were to default or what it will take to avoid default. They may be overly focused on their immediate needs relative to the longer-term picture. The lender's marketing materials may have succeeded in convincing the consumer of the value of a loan to bridge until their next paycheck. Some of the remedies a lender might take, such as repeatedly attempting to collect from a borrower's checking account or using remotely created checks, may be unfamiliar to borrowers. Realizing that this is even a possibility would depend on the borrower investigating what would happen in the case of an event they do not expect to occur, such as a default.

f. Collateral Harms From Making Unaffordable Payments

In addition to the harms associated with delinquency and default, borrowers who take out these loans may experience other financial hardships as a result of making payments on unaffordable loans. These may arise if the borrower feels compelled to prioritize payment on the loan and does not wish to reborrow. This course may result in defaulting on other obligations or forgoing basic living expenses. If a lender has taken a security interest in the borrower's vehicle, for example, the borrower is likely to feel compelled to prioritize payments on the title loan over other bills or crucial expenditures because of the leverage that the threat of repossession gives to the lender.

The repayment mechanisms for other short-term loans can also cause borrowers to lose control over their own finances. If a lender has the ability to withdraw payment directly from a borrower's checking account, especially when the lender is able to time the withdrawal to align with the borrower's payday or the day the borrower receives periodic income, the borrower may lose control over the order in which payments are made and may be unable to choose to make essential expenditures before repaying the loan.

The Bureau is not able to directly observe the harms borrowers suffer from making unaffordable payments. The rates of reborrowing and default on these loans indicate that many borrowers do struggle to repay these loans, and it is therefore reasonable to infer that many borrowers are suffering harms from making unaffordable payments particularly where a leveraged payment mechanism and vehicle security strongly incentivize consumers to prioritize short-term loans over other expenses.

g. Harms Remain Under Existing Regulatory Approaches

Based on Bureau analysis and outreach, the harms the Bureau perceives from payday loans, single-payment vehicle title loans, and other short-term loans persist in these markets despite existing regulatory frameworks. In particular, the Bureau believes that existing regulatory frameworks in those States that have authorized payday and/or vehicle title lending have still left many consumers vulnerable to the specific harms discussed above relating to reborrowing, default, and collateral harms from making unaffordable payments.

Several different factors have complicated State efforts to effectively apply their regulatory frameworks to payday loans and other short-term loans. For example, lenders may adjust their product offerings or their licensing status to avoid State law restrictions, such as by shifting from payday loans to vehicle title or installment loans or open-end credit or by obtaining licenses under State mortgage lending laws. States also have faced challenges in applying their laws to certain online lenders, including lenders claiming tribal affiliation or offshore lenders.

As discussed above in part II, States have adopted a variety of different approaches for regulating payday loans and other short-term loans. For example, fourteen States and the District of Columbia have interest rate caps or other restrictions that, in effect, prohibit payday lending. Although consumers in these States may still be exposed to potential harms from short-term lending, such as online loans made by lenders that claim immunity from these State laws or from loans obtained in neighboring States, these provisions provide strong protections for consumers by substantially reducing their exposure to the harms from payday loans.

The 36 States that permit payday loans in some form have taken a variety of different approaches to regulating such loans. Some States have restrictions on rollovers or other reborrowing. Among other things, these restrictions may include caps on the total number of permissible loans in a given period, or cooling-off periods between loans. Some States prohibit a lender from making a payday loan to a borrower who already has an outstanding payday loan. Some States have adopted provisions with minimum income requirements. For example, some States provide that a payday loan cannot exceed a percentage (most commonly 25 percent) of a consumer's gross monthly income. Some State payday or vehicle title lending statutes require that the lender consider a consumer's ability to repay the loan, though none of them specify what steps lenders must take to determine whether the consumer has the ability to repay a loan. Some States require that consumers have the opportunity to repay a short-term loan through an extended payment plan over the course of a longer period of time. Additionally, some jurisdictions require lenders to provide specific disclosures to alert borrowers of potential risks.

While these provisions may have been designed to target some of the same or similar potential harms identified above, these provisions do not appear to have had a significant impact on reducing reborrowing and other harms that confront consumers of short-term loans. In particular, as discussed above, the Bureau's primary concern for payday loans and other short-term loans is that many consumers end up reborrowing over and over again, turning what was ostensibly a short-term loan into a long-term cycle of debt. The Bureau's analysis of borrowing patterns in different States that permit payday loans indicates that most States have very similar rates of reborrowing, with about 80 percent of loans followed by another loan within 30 days, regardless of the restrictions that are in place. In particular, laws that prevent direct rollovers of loans, as well as laws that impose short cooling-off periods between loans, such as Florida's prohibition on same-day reborrowing, have very little impact on reborrowing rates measured over periods longer than one day. The 30-day reborrowing rate in all States that prohibit rollovers is 80 percent, and in Florida the rate is 89 percent. Several States, however, do stand out as having substantially lower reborrowing rates than other States. These include Washington, which limits borrowers to no more than eight loans in a rolling 12-month period and has a 30-day reborrowing rate of 63 percent, and Virginia, which imposes a minimum loan length of two pay periods and imposes a 45-day cooling off period once a borrower has had [five] loans in a rolling six-month period, and has a 30-day reborrowing rate of 61 percent.

Likewise, the Bureau believes that disclosures are insufficient to adequately reduce the harm that consumers suffer when lenders do not determine consumers' ability to repay, for two primary reasons. First, disclosures do not address the underlying incentives in this market for lenders to encourage borrowers to reborrow and take out long sequences of loans. As discussed above, the prevailing business model in the short-term loan market involves lenders deriving a very high percentage of their revenues from long loan sequences. While enhanced disclosures would provide additional information to consumers, the Bureau believes that the loans would remain unaffordable for most consumers, lenders would have no greater incentive to underwrite more rigorously, and lenders would remain dependent on long-term loan sequences for revenues.

Second, empirical evidence suggests that disclosures have only modest impacts on consumer borrowing patterns for short-term loans generally and negligible impacts on whether consumers reborrow. Evidence from a field trial of several disclosures designed specifically to warn of the risks of reborrowing and the costs of reborrowing showed that these disclosures had a marginal effect on the total volume of payday borrowing. Analysis by the Bureau of similar disclosures implemented by the State of Texas showed a reduction in loan volume of 13 percent after the disclosure requirement went into effect, relative to the loan volume changes for the study period in comparison States. The Bureau believes these findings confirm the limited magnitude of the impacts from the field trial. In addition, analysis by the Bureau of the impacts of the disclosures in Texas shows that the probability of reborrowing on a payday loan declined by only approximately 2 percent once the disclosure was put in place. Together, these findings indicate that high levels of reborrowing and long sequences of payday loans remain a significant source of consumer harm even after a disclosure regime is put into place. Further, as discussed above in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the Bureau has observed that consumers have a very high probability of winding up in a very long sequence once they have taken out only a few loans in a row. The contrast of the very high likelihood that a consumer will wind up in a long-term debt cycle after taking out only a few loans with the near negligible impact of a disclosure on consumer reborrowing patterns provides further evidence of the insufficiency of disclosures to address what the Bureau believes are the core harms to consumers in this credit market.

During the SBREFA process, many of the SERs urged the Bureau to reconsider the proposals under consideration and defer to existing regulation of these credit markets by the States or to model Federal regulation on the laws or regulations of certain States. In the Small Business Review Panel Report, the Panel recommended that the Bureau continue to consider whether regulations in place at the State level are sufficient to address concerns about unaffordable loan payments and that the Bureau consider whether existing State laws and regulations could provide a model for elements of the Federal regulation. The Bureau has examined State laws closely in connection with preparing the proposed rule, as discussed in part II. Moreover, based on the Bureau's data analysis as noted above, the regulatory frameworks in most States do not appear to have had a significant impact on reducing reborrowing and other harms that confront consumers of short-term loans. For these and the other reasons discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the Bureau believes that Federal intervention in these markets is warranted at this time.

Section 1041.4 Identification of Abusive and Unfair Practice—Short-Term Loans

In most consumer lending markets, it is standard practice for lenders to assess whether a consumer has the ability to repay a loan before making the loan. In certain markets, Federal law requires this. The Bureau has not determined whether, as a general rule, it is an unfair or abusive practice for any lender to make a loan without making such a determination. Nor is the Bureau proposing to resolve that question in this rulemaking. Rather, the focus of Subpart B of this proposed rule is on a specific set of loans which the Bureau has carefully studied, as discussed in more detail in part II and Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans. Based on the evidence described in part II and Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, and pursuant to its authority under section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.4 to identify it as both an abusive and an unfair act or practice for a lender to make a covered short-term loan without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. “Ability to repay” in this context means that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan without reborrowing and while meeting the consumer's major financial obligations and basic living expenses. The Bureau's preliminary findings with regard to abusiveness and unfairness are discussed separately below. The Bureau is making these preliminary findings based on the specific evidence cited below in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.4, as well as the evidence discussed in part II and Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans.

Abusiveness

Under § 1031(d)(2)(A) and (B) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau may find an act or practice to be abusive in connection with a consumer financial product or service if the act or practice takes unreasonable advantage of (A) a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service or of (B) the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service. It appears to the Bureau that consumers generally do not understand the material risks and costs of taking out a payday, vehicle title, or other short-term loan, and further lack the ability to protect their interests in selecting or using such loans. It also appears to the Bureau that lenders take unreasonable advantage of these consumer vulnerabilities by making loans of this type without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan.

Consumers Lack an Understanding of Material Risks and Costs

As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, short-term payday and vehicle title loans can and frequently do lead to a number of negative consequences for consumers, which range from extensive reborrowing to defaulting to being unable to pay other obligations or basic living expenses as a result of making an unaffordable payment. All of these—including the direct costs that may be payable to lenders and the collateral consequences that may flow from the loans—are risks or costs of these loans, as the Bureau understands and reasonably interprets that phrase.

The Bureau recognizes that consumers who take out a payday, vehicle title, or other short-term loan understand that they are incurring a debt which must be repaid within a prescribed period of time and that if they are unable to do so, they will either have to make other arrangements or suffer adverse consequences. The Bureau does not believe, however, that such a generalized understanding suffices to establish that consumers understand the material costs and risks of these products. Rather, the Bureau believes that it is reasonable to interpret “understanding” in this context to mean more than a mere awareness that it is within the realm of possibility that a particular negative consequence may follow or cost may be incurred as a result of using the product. For example, consumers may not understand that a risk is very likely to materialize or that—though relatively rare—the impact of a particular risk would be severe.

As discussed above in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the single largest risk to a consumer of taking out a payday, vehicle title, or similar short-term loan is that the initial loan will lead to an extended cycle of indebtedness. This occurs in large part because the structure of the loan usually requires the consumer to make a lump-sum payment within a short period of time, typically two weeks, or a month, which would absorb such a large share of the consumer's disposable income as to leave the consumer unable to pay the consumer's major financial obligations and basic living expenses. Additionally, in States where it is permitted, lenders often offer borrowers the enticing, but ultimately costly, alternative of paying a smaller fee (such as 15 percent of the principal) and rolling over the loan or making back-to-back repayment and reborrowing transactions rather than repaying the loan in full—and many borrowers choose this option. Alternatively, borrowers may repay the loan in full when due but find it necessary to take out another loan a short time later because the large amount of cash needed to repay the first loan relative to their income leaves them without sufficient funds to meet their other obligations and expenses. This cycle of indebtedness affects a large segment of borrowers: As described in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, 50 percent of storefront payday loan sequences contain at least four loans. One-third contain seven loans or more, by which point consumers will have paid charges equal to 100 percent of the amount borrowed and still owe the full amount of the principal. Almost one-quarter of loan sequences contain at least 10 loans in a row. And looking just at loans made to borrowers who are paid weekly, biweekly, or semi-monthly, 21 percent of loans are in sequences consisting of at least 20 loans. For loans made to borrowers who are paid monthly, 46 percent of loans are in sequences consisting of at least 10 loans.

The evidence summarized in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans also shows that consumers who take out these loans typically appear not to understand when they first take out a loan how long they are likely to remain in debt and how costly that will be for them. Payday borrowers tend to overestimate their likelihood of repaying without reborrowing and underestimate the likelihood that they will end up in an extended loan sequence. For example, one study found that while 60 percent of borrowers predict they would not roll over or reborrow their payday loan, only 40 percent actually did not roll over or reborrow. The same study found that consumers who end up reborrowing numerous times—i.e., the consumers who suffer the most harm—are particularly bad at predicting the number of times they will need to reborrow. Thus, many consumers who expected to be in debt only a short amount of time can find themselves in a months-long cycle of indebtedness, paying hundreds of dollars in fees above what they expected while struggling to repay the original loan amount.

The Bureau has observed similar outcomes for borrowers of single-payment vehicle title loans. For example, 83 percent of vehicle title loans being reborrowed on the same day that a previous loan was due, and 85 percent of vehicle title loans are reborrowed within 30 days of a previous vehicle title loan. Fifty-six percent of vehicle title loan sequences consist of more than three loans, 36 percent consist of at least seven loans, and almost one quarter—23 percent—consist of more than 10 loans. While there is no comparable research on the expectations of vehicle title borrowers, the Bureau believes that the research in the payday context can be extrapolated to these other products given the significant similarities in the product structures, the characteristics of the borrowers, and the outcomes borrowers experience, as detailed in part II and Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans.

Consumers are also exposed to other material risks and costs in connection with covered short-term loans. As discussed in more detail in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the unaffordability of the payments for many consumers creates a substantial risk of default. Indeed, 20 percent of payday loan sequences and 33 percent of title loan sequences end in default. And 69 percent of payday loan defaults occur in loan sequences in which the consumer reborrows at least once. For a payday borrower, the cost of default generally includes the cost of at least one, and often multiple, NSF fees assessed by the borrower's bank when the lender attempts to cash the borrower's postdated check or debit the consumer's account via ACH transfer and the attempt fails. NSFs are associated with a high rate of bank account closures. Defaults also often expose consumers to aggressive debt collection activities by the lender or a third-party debt collector. The consequences of default can be even more dire for a vehicle title borrower, including the loss of the consumer's vehicle—which is the result in 20 percent of single-payment vehicle title loan sequences.

The Bureau does not believe that many consumers who take out payday, vehicle title, or other short-term loans understand the magnitude of these additional risks—for example, that they have at least a one in five (or for auto title borrowers a one in three) chance of defaulting. Nor are payday borrowers likely to factor into their decision on whether to take out the loan the many collateral consequences of default, including expensive bank fees, aggressive collections, or the costs of having to get to work or otherwise from place to place if their vehicle is repossessed.

As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, several factors can impede consumers' understanding of the material risks and costs of payday, vehicle title, and other short-term loans. To begin with, there is a mismatch between how these loans are structured and how they operate in practice. Although the loans are presented as standalone short-term products, only a minority of payday loans are repaid without any reborrowing. These loans often instead produce lengthy cycles of rollovers or new loans taken out shortly after the prior loans are repaid. Empirical evidence shows that consumers are not able to accurately predict how many times they will reborrow, and thus are not able to tell when they take out the first loan how long their cycles will last and how much they will ultimately pay for the initial disbursement of loan proceeds. Even consumers who believe they will be unable to repay the loan immediately and therefore expect some amount of reborrowing are generally unable to predict accurately how many times they will reborrow and at what cost. This is especially true for consumers who reborrow many times.

In addition, consumers in extreme financial distress tend to focus on their immediate liquidity needs rather than potential future costs in a way that makes them particularly susceptible to lender marketing, and payday and vehicle title lenders often emphasize the speed with which the lender will provide funds to the consumer. In fact, numerous lenders select company names that emphasize rapid loan funding. But there is a substantial disparity between how these loans are marketed by lenders and how they are actually experienced by many consumers. While covered short-term loans are marketed as short-duration loans intended for short-term or emergency use only, a substantial percentage of consumers do not repay the loan quickly and thus either default, or, in a majority of the cases, reborrow—often many times. Moreover, consumers who take out covered short-term loans may be overly optimistic about their future cash flow. Such incorrect expectations may lead consumers to misunderstand whether they will have the ability to repay the loan, or to expect that they will be able to repay it after reborrowing only a few times. These consumers may find themselves caught in a cycle of reborrowing that is both very costly and very difficult to escape.

Consumer Inability to Protect Interests

Under section 1031(d)(2)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act, an act or practice is abusive if it takes unreasonable advantage of the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service. Consumers who lack an understanding of the material risks and costs of a consumer financial product or service often will also lack the ability to protect their interests in selecting or using that consumer financial product or service. For instance, as discussed above, the Bureau believes that consumers are unlikely to be able to protect their interests in selecting or using payday, vehicle title, and other short-term loans because they do not understand the material risks and costs associated with these products.

But it is reasonable to also conclude from the structure of section 1031(d), which separately declares it abusive to take unreasonable advantage of consumer lack of understanding or of consumers' inability to protect their interests in using or selecting a product or service that, in some circumstances, consumers may understand the risks and costs of a product, but nonetheless be unable to protect their interests in selecting or using the product. The Bureau believes that consumers who take out an initial payday loan, vehicle title loan, or other short-term loan may be unable to protect their interests in selecting or using such loans, given their immediate need for credit and their inability in the moment to search out or develop alternatives that would either enable them to avoid the need to borrow or to borrow on terms that are within their ability to repay.

As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, consumers who take out payday or short-term vehicle title loans typically have exhausted other sources of credit such as their credit card(s). In the months leading up to their liquidity shortfall, they typically have tried and failed to obtain other forms of credit. Their need is immediate. Moreover, consumers facing an immediate liquidity shortfall may believe that a short-term loan is their only choice; one study found that 37 percent of borrowers say they have been in such a difficult financial situation that they would take a payday loan on any terms offered. They may not have the time or other resources to seek out, develop, or take advantage of alternatives. These factors may place consumers in such a vulnerable position when seeking out and taking these loans that they are potentially unable to protect their interests.

The Bureau also believes that once consumers have commenced a loan sequence they may be unable to protect their interests in the selection or use of subsequent loans. After the initial loan in a sequence has been consummated, the consumer is legally obligated to repay the debt. Consumers who do not have the ability to repay that initial loan are faced with making a choice among three bad options: They can either default on the loan, skip or delay payments on major financial obligations or living expenses in order to repay the loan, or, as is most often the case, take out another loan and soon face the same predicament again. At that point, at least some consumers may gain a fuller awareness of the risks and costs of this type of loan, but by then it may be too late for the consumer to be able to protect her interests. Each of these choices results in increased costs to consumers—often very high and unexpected costs—which harm consumers' interests. An unaffordable first loan can thus ensnare consumers in a cycle of debt from which consumers have no reasonable means to extricate themselves, rendering them unable to protect their interests in selecting or using covered short-term loans.

Practice Takes Unreasonable Advantage of Consumer Vulnerabilities

Under section 1031(d)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act, a practice is abusive if it takes unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding or inability to protect their interests. The Bureau believes that the lender practice of making covered short-term loans without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay may take unreasonable advantage both of consumers' lack of understanding of the material risks, costs, and conditions of such loans, and consumers' inability to protect their interests in selecting or using the loans.

The Bureau recognizes that in any transaction involving a consumer financial product or service there is likely to be some information asymmetry between the consumer and the financial institution. Often, the financial institution will have superior bargaining power as well. Section 1031(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act does not prohibit financial institutions from taking advantage of their superior knowledge or bargaining power to maximize their profit. Indeed, in a market economy, market participants with such advantages generally pursue their self-interests. However, section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act makes plain that there comes a point at which a financial institution's conduct in leveraging its superior information or bargaining power becomes unreasonable advantage-taking and thus is abusive.

The Dodd-Frank Act delegates to the Bureau the responsibility for determining when that line has been crossed. The Bureau believes that such determinations are best made with respect to any particular act or practice by taking into account all of the facts and circumstances that are relevant to assessing whether such an act or practice takes unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding or of consumers' inability to protect their interests. Several interrelated considerations lead the Bureau to believe that the practice of making payday, vehicle title, and other short-term loans without regard to the consumer's ability to repay may cross the line and take unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding and inability to protect their interests.

The Bureau first notes that the practice of making loans without regard to the consumer's ability to repay stands in stark contrast to the practice of lenders in virtually every other credit market, and upends traditional notions of responsible lending enshrined in safety-and-soundness principles as well as in a number of other laws. The general presupposition of credit markets is that the interests of lenders and borrowers are closely aligned: lenders succeed (i.e., profit) only when consumers succeed (i.e., repay their loan according to its terms). For example, lenders in other markets, including other subprime lenders, typically do not make loans without first making an assessment that consumers have the capacity to repay the loan according to the loan terms. Indeed, “capacity” is one of the traditional three “Cs” of lending and is often embodied in tests that look at debt as a proportion of the consumer's income or at the consumer's residual income after repaying the debt.

In the markets for payday, vehicle title, and similar short-term loans, however, lenders have built a business model that—unbeknownst to borrowers—depends upon the consumer's lack of capacity to repay such loans without needing to reborrow. As explained above, the costs of maintaining business operations (which include customer acquisition costs and overhead expenses) often exceed the revenue that could be generated from making individual short-term loans that are repaid without reborrowing. Thus, lenders' business model depends upon a substantial percentage of consumers not being able to repay their loans when due and, instead, taking out multiple additional loans in quick succession. Indeed, upwards of half of all payday and single-payment vehicle title loans are made to—and an even higher percentage of revenue is derived from—borrowers in a sequence of ten loans or more. This dependency on revenue from long-term debt cycles has been acknowledged by industry stakeholders. For example, as noted in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, an attorney for a national trade association representing storefront payday lenders asserted in a letter to the Bureau that, “[i]n any large, mature payday loan portfolio, loans to repeat borrowers generally constitute between 70 and 90 percent of the portfolio, and for some lenders, even more.”

Also relevant in assessing whether the practice at issue here involves unreasonable advantage-taking is the vulnerability of the consumers seeking these types of loans. As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, payday and vehicle title borrowers—and by extension borrowers of similar short-term loans—generally have modest incomes, little or no savings, and have tried and failed to obtain other forms of credit. They generally turn to these products in times of need as a “last resort,” and when the loan comes due and threatens to take a large portion of their income, their situation becomes, if anything, even more desperate.

In addition, the evidence described in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans suggests that lenders engage in practices that further exacerbate the risks and costs to the interests of consumers. Lenders market these loans as being for use “until next payday” or to “tide over” consumers until they receive income, thus encouraging overly optimistic thinking about how the consumer is likely to use the product. Lender advertising also focuses on immediacy and speed, which may increase consumers' existing sense of urgency. Lenders make an initial short-term loan and then roll over or make new loans to consumers in close proximity to the prior loan, compounding the consumer's initial inability to repay. Lenders make this reborrowing option easy and salient to consumers in comparison to repayment of the full loan principal. Moreover, lenders do not appear to encourage borrowers to reduce the outstanding principal over the course of a loan sequence, which would help consumers extricate themselves from the cycle of indebtedness more quickly and reduce their costs from reborrowing. Storefront lenders in particular encourage loan sequences because they encourage or require consumers to repay in person in an effort to frame the consumer's experience in a way to encourage reborrowing. Lenders often give financial incentives to employees to reward maximizing loan volume.

By not determining that consumers have the ability to repay their loans, lenders potentially take unreasonable advantage of a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks of those loans and of the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using those loans.

Unfairness

Under section 1031(c)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act, an act or practice is unfair if it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidably by consumers and such injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. Under section 1031(c)(2), the Bureau may consider established public policies as evidence in making this determination. The Bureau believes that it may be an unfair act or practice for a lender to make a covered short-term loan without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan.

Practice Causes or Is Likely To Cause Substantial Injury

As noted in part IV, the Bureau's interpretation of the various prongs of the unfairness test is informed by the FTC Act, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, and FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings and related case law. Under these authorities, as discussed in part IV, substantial injury may consist of a small amount of harm to a large number of individuals or a larger amount of harm to a smaller number of individuals. In this case, the practice at issue causes or is likely to cause both—a substantial number of consumers suffer a high degree of harm, and a large number of consumers suffer a lower but still meaningful degree of harm.

The Bureau believes that the practice of making a covered short-term loan without assessing the consumer's ability to repay may cause or be likely to cause substantial injury. When a loan is structured to require repayment within a short period of time, the payments may outstrip the consumer's ability to repay since the type of consumers who turn to these products cannot absorb large loan payments on top of their major financial obligations and basic living expenses. If a lender nonetheless makes such loans without determining that the loan payments are within the consumer's ability to repay, then it appears the lender's conduct causes or is likely to cause the injuries described below.

In the aggregate, the consumers who suffer the greatest injury are those consumers who have exceedingly long loan sequences. As discussed above in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, consumers who become trapped in long loan sequences pay substantial fees for reborrowing, and they usually do not reduce the principal amount owed when they reborrow. For example, roughly half of payday loan sequences consist of at least three rollovers, at which point, in a typical two-week loan, a storefront payday borrower will have paid over a period of eight weeks charges equal to 60 percent or more of the loan amount—and will still owe the full amount borrowed. Roughly one-third of consumers roll over or renew their loan at least six times, which means that, after three and a half months with a typical two-week loan, the consumer will have paid to the lender a sum equal to 100 percent of the loan amount and made no progress in repaying the principal. Almost one-quarter of loan sequences consist of at least 10 loans in a row, and 50 percent of all loans are in sequences of 10 loans or more. And looking just at loans made to borrowers who are paid weekly, biweekly, or semi-monthly, approximately 21 percent of loans are in sequences consisting of at least 20 loans. For loans made to borrowers who are paid monthly, 42 percent of loans are in sequences consisting of at least 10 loans. In many instances, such consumers also incur bank penalty fees (such as NSF fees) and lender penalty fees (such as late fees and/or returned check fees) before rolling over a loan. Similarly, for vehicle title loans, the Bureau found that more than half, 56 percent, of single-payment vehicle title sequences consist of at least four loans in a row; over a third, 36 percent, consist of seven or more loans in a row; and 23 percent had 10 or more loans.

Moreover, consumers whose loan sequences are shorter may still suffer meaningful injury from reborrowing beyond expected levels, albeit to a lesser degree than those in longer sequences. Even a consumer who reborrows only once or twice—and, as described in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, 22 percent of payday and 23 percent of vehicle title loan sequences show this pattern—will still incur substantial costs related to reborrowing or rolling over the loans.

The injuries resulting from default on these loans also appear to be significant in magnitude. As described in section Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, 20 percent of payday loan sequences end in default, while 33 percent of vehicle title sequences end in default. Because short-term loans (other than vehicle title loans) are usually accompanied by some means of payment collection—typically a postdated check for storefront payday loans and an authorization to submit electronic debits to the consumer's account for online payday loans—a default means that the lender was unable to secure payment despite using those tools. That means that a default is preceded by failed payment withdrawal attempts which generate bank fees (such as NSF fees), that can put the consumer's account at risk and lender fees (such as late fees or returned check fees) which add to the consumer's indebtedness. Additionally, as discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, where lenders' attempts to extract money directly from the consumer's account fails, the lender often will resort to other collection techniques, some of which—such as repeated phone calls, in-person visits to homes and worksites, and lawsuits leading to wage garnishments—can inflict significant financial and psychological damage on consumers.

For consumers with a short-term vehicle title loan, the injury from default can be even greater. In such cases lenders do not have access to the consumers' bank account but instead have the ability to repossess the consumer's vehicle. As discussed above, almost one in five vehicle title loan sequences end with the consumer's vehicle being repossessed. Consumers whose vehicles are repossessed may end up either wholly dependent upon public transportation, or family, or friends to get to work, to shop, or to attend to personal needs, or in many areas of the country without any effective means of transportation at all.

Moreover, the Bureau believes that many consumers, regardless of whether they ultimately manage to pay off the loan, suffer collateral consequences as they struggle to make payments that are beyond their ability to repay. For instance, they may be unable to meet their other major financial obligations or be forced to forgo basic living expenses as a result of prioritizing a loan payment and other loan charges—or having it prioritized for them by the lender's exercise of its leveraged payment mechanism.

Injury Not Reasonably Avoidable

As previously noted in part IV, under the FTC Act unfairness standard, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings, and related case law, which inform the Bureau's interpretation and application of the unfairness test, an injury is not reasonably avoidable where “some form of seller behavior . . . unreasonably creates or takes advantage of an obstacle to the free exercise of consumer decision-making,” or, put another way, unless consumers have reason to anticipate the injury and the means to avoid it. It appears that, in a significant proportion of cases, consumers are unable to reasonably avoid the substantial injuries caused or likely to be caused by the identified practice. Prior to entering into a payday, vehicle title, or other short-term loan, consumers are unable to reasonably anticipate the likelihood and severity of injuries that frequently results from such loans, and after entering into the loan, consumers do not have the means to avoid the injuries that may result should the loan prove unaffordable.

As discussed above in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, a confluence of factors creates obstacles to the free exercise of consumers' decision-making, preventing them from reasonably avoiding injury caused by unaffordable short-term loans. Such loans involve a basic mismatch between how they appear to function as short term credit and how they are actually designed to function in long sequences of reborrowing. Lenders present short-term loans as short-term, liquidity-enhancing products that consumers can use to bridge an income shortfall until their next paycheck. But in practice, these loans often do not operate that way. The disparity between how these loans appear to function and how they actually function creates difficulties for consumers in estimating with any accuracy how long they will remain in debt and how much they will ultimately pay for the initial extension of credit. Consumer predictions are often overly optimistic, and consumers who experience long sequences of loans often do not expect those long sequences when they make their initial borrowing decision. As detailed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, empirical evidence demonstrates that consumer predictions of how long the loan sequence will last tend to be inaccurate, with many consumers underestimating the length of their loan sequence. Consumers are particularly poor at predicting long sequences of loans, and many do not appear to improve the accuracy of their predictions as a result of past borrowing experience.

Likewise, consumers are unable to reasonably anticipate the likelihood and severity of the consequences of being unable to repay the loan. The consequences include, for example, the risk of accumulating numerous penalty fees on their bank account and on their loan, and the risk that their vehicle will be repossessed, leading to numerous direct and indirect costs. The typical consumer does not have the information to understand the frequency with which these adverse consequences do occur or the likelihood of such consequences befalling a typical consumer of such a loan.

In analyzing reasonable avoidability under the FTC Act unfairness standard, the Bureau notes that the FTC and other agencies have at times focused on factors such as the vulnerability of affected consumers, as well as those consumers' perception of the availability of alternative products. Likewise, the Bureau believes that the substantial injury from short-term loans may not be reasonably avoidable in part because of the consumers' precarious financial situation at the time they borrow and their reasonable belief that searching for alternatives will be fruitless and costly. As discussed in part Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, consumers who take out payday or short-term vehicle title loans typically have tried and failed to obtain other forms of credit before turning to these loans as a “last resort.” Thus, based on their prior negative experience with attempting to obtain credit, they may reasonably perceive that alternative options would not be available. Consumers facing an imminent liquidity crisis may also reasonably believe that their situation is so dire that they do not have time to shop for alternatives and that doing so could prove costly.

Not only are consumers unable to reasonably anticipate potential harms before entering into a payday, vehicle title, or other short-term loan, once they have entered into a loan, they do not have the means to avoid the injuries should the loan prove unaffordable. Consumers who obtain a covered short-term loan beyond their ability to repay face three options: Either reborrow, default, or repay the loan but defer or skip payments on their major financial obligations and for basic living expenses. In other words, for a consumer facing an unaffordable payment, some form of substantial injury is almost inevitable regardless of what actions are taken by the consumer. And as discussed above, lenders engage in a variety of practices that further increase the degree of harm, for instance by encouraging additional reborrowing even among consumers who are already experiencing substantial difficulties and engaging in payment collection practices that are likely to cause consumers to incur substantial additional fees beyond what they already owe.

Injury Not Outweighed by Countervailing Benefits to Consumers or to Competition

As noted in part IV, the Bureau's interpretation of the various prongs of the unfairness test is informed by the FTC Act, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, and FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings and related case law. Under those authorities, it generally is appropriate for purposes of the countervailing benefits prong of the unfairness standard to consider both the costs of imposing a remedy and any benefits that consumers enjoy as a result of the practice, but the determination does not require a precise quantitative analysis of benefits and costs.

It appears to the Bureau that the current practice of making payday, vehicle title, and other short-term loans without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay does not result in benefits to consumers or competition that outweigh the substantial injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid. As discussed above, the amount of injury that is caused by the unfair practice, in the aggregate, appears to be extremely high. Although some individual consumers may be able to avoid the injury, as noted above, a significant number of consumers who end up in very long loan sequences can incur extremely severe financial injuries that were not reasonably avoidable. Moreover, some consumers whose short-term loans become short- to medium-length loan sequences incur various degrees of injury ranging from modest to severe depending on the particular consumer's circumstances (such as the specific loan terms, whether and how much the consumer expected to reborrow, and the extent to which the consumer incurred collateral harms from making unaffordable payments). In addition, many borrowers also experience substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable as a result of defaulting on a loan or repaying a loan but not being able to meet other obligations and expenses.

Against this very significant amount of harm, the Bureau must weigh several potential countervailing benefits to consumers or competition of the practice in assessing whether it is unfair. The Bureau believes it is helpful to divide consumers into several groups of different borrowing experiences when analyzing whether the practice of extending covered short-term loans without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay yields countervailing benefits to consumers.

The first group consists of borrowers who repay their loan without reborrowing. The Bureau refers to these borrowers as “repayers” for purposes of this countervailing benefits analysis. As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, 22 percent of payday loan sequences and 12 percent of vehicle title loan sequences end with the consumer repaying the initial loan in a sequence without reborrowing. Many of these consumers may reasonably be determined, before getting a loan, to have the ability to repay their loan, such that the ability-to-repay requirement in proposed § 1041.5 would not have a significant impact on their eligibility for this type of credit. At most, it would reduce somewhat the speed and convenience of applying for a loan under the current practice. Under the status quo, the median borrower lives five miles from the nearest payday store. Consumers generally can obtain payday loans simply by traveling to the store and showing a paystub and evidence of a checking account; online payday lenders may require even less. For vehicle title loans, all that is generally required is that the consumer owns their vehicle outright without any encumbrance.

As discussed in more detail in part VI, there could be a significant contraction in the number of payday stores if lenders were required to assess consumers' ability to pay in the manner required by the proposal, but the Bureau projects that 93 to 95 percent of borrowers would not have to travel more than five additional miles. Lenders likely would require more information and documentation from the consumer. Indeed, under the proposed rule consumers may be required in certain circumstances to provide documentation of their income for a longer period of time than their last paystub and may be required to document their rental expenses. Consumers would also be required to complete a written statement with respect to their expected future income and major financial obligations.

Additionally, when a lender makes a loan without determining a consumer's ability to repay, the lender can make the loan instantaneously upon obtaining a consumer's paystub or vehicle title. In contrast, if lenders assessed consumers' ability to repay, they might secure extrinsic data, such as a consumer report from a national consumer reporting agency, which could slow the process down. Indeed, under the proposed rule lenders would be required to review the consumer's borrowing history using the lender's own records and a report from a registered information system, and lenders would also be required to review a credit report from a national credit reporting agency. Using this information, along with verified income, lenders would have to project the consumer's residual income.

As discussed below in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.5, the proposed rule has been designed to enable lenders to obtain electronic income verification, to use a model to estimate rental expenses, and to automate the process of securing additional information and assessing the consumer's ability to repay. If the proposed ability-to-repay requirements are finalized, the Bureau anticipates that consumers who are able to demonstrate the ability to repay under proposed § 1041.5 would be able to obtain credit to a similar extent as they do in the current market. While the speed and convenience fostered by the current practice may be reduced for these consumers under the proposed rule's requirements, the Bureau does not believe that the proposed requirements will be overly burdensome in this respect. As described in part VI, the Bureau estimates that the required ability-to-repay determination would take essentially no time for a fully automated electronic system and between 15 and 20 minutes for a fully manual system.

While the Bureau believes that most repayers would be able to demonstrate the ability to repay under proposed § 1041.5, the Bureau recognizes that there is a sub-segment of repayers who could not demonstrate their ability to repay if required to do so by a lender. For them, the current lender practice of making loans without determining their ability to repay enables these consumers to obtain credit that, by hypothesis, may actually be within their ability to repay. The Bureau acknowledges that for this group of “false negatives” there may be significant benefits of being able to obtain covered loans without having to demonstrate their ability to repay in the way prescribed by proposed § 1041.5.

However, the Bureau believes that under the proposed rule lenders will generally be able to identify consumers who are able to repay and that the size of any residual “false negative” population will be small. This is especially true to the extent that this class of consumers is disproportionately drawn from the ranks of those whose need to borrow is driven by a temporary mismatch in the timing between their income and expenses rather than those who have experienced an income or expense shock or those with a chronic cash shortfall. It is very much in the interest of these borrowers to attempt to demonstrate their ability to repay in order to receive the loan and for the same reason lenders will have every incentive to err on the side of finding such an ability. Moreover, even if these consumers could not qualify for the loan they would have obtained absent an ability-to-pay requirement, they may still be able to get different credit within their demonstrable ability to repay, such as a smaller loan or a loan with a longer term. For these reasons, the Bureau does not believe that there would be a large false negative population if lenders made loans only to those with the ability to repay.

Finally, some of the repayers may not actually be able to afford the loan, but choose to repay it nonetheless, rather than reborrow or default—which may result in their incurring costs in connection with another obligation, such as a late fee on a utility bill. Such repayers would not be able to obtain under proposed § 1041.5 the same loan that they would have obtained absent an ability-to-repay requirement, but any benefit they receive under the current practice would appear to be small, at most.

The second group consists of borrowers who eventually default on their loan, either on the first loan or later in a loan sequence after having reborrowed. The Bureau refers to these borrowers as “defaulters” for purposes of this countervailing benefits analysis. As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, borrowers of 20 percent of payday and 33 percent of vehicle title loan sequences fall within this group. For these consumers, the current lender practice of making loans without regard to their ability to repay may enable them to obtain what amounts to a temporary “reprieve” from their current situation. They can obtain some cash which may enable them to pay a current bill or current expense. However, for many consumers, the reprieve can be exceedingly short-lived: 31 percent of payday loan sequences that default are single loan sequences, and an additional 27 percent of loan sequences that default are two or three loans long (meaning that 58 percent of defaults occur in loan sequences that are one, two, or three loans long). Twenty-nine percent of single-payment vehicle title loan sequences that default are single loan sequences, and an additional 26 percent of loan sequences that default are two or three loans long.

These consumers thus are merely substituting a payday lender or vehicle title lender for a preexisting creditor, and in doing so, end up in a deeper hole by accruing finance charges, late fees, or other charges at a high rate. Vehicle title loans can have an even more dire consequence for defaulters: 20 percent have their vehicle repossessed. The Bureau thus does not believe that defaulters obtain benefits from the current lender practice of not determining ability to repay.

The final and largest group of consumers consists of those who neither default nor repay their loans without reborrowing but who, instead, reborrow before eventually repaying. The Bureau refers to consumers with such loan sequences as “reborrowers” for purposes of this countervailing benefits discussion. These consumers represent 58 percent of payday loan sequences and 56 percent of auto title loan sequences. For these consumers, as for the defaulters, the practice of making loans without regard to their ability to repay enables them to obtain a temporary reprieve from their current situation. But for this group, that reprieve can come at a greater cost than initially expected, sometimes substantially greater.

Some reborrowers are able to end their borrowing after a relatively small number of additional loans; for example, approximately 22 percent of payday loan sequences and 23 percent of vehicle title loan sequences are repaid after the initial loan is reborrowed once or twice. But even among this group, many consumers do not anticipate before taking out a loan that they will need to reborrow. These consumers cannot reasonably avoid their injuries, and while their injuries may be somewhat less severe than the injuries suffered by consumers with extremely long loan sequences, their injuries can nonetheless be substantial, particularly in light of their already precarious finances. Conversely, some of these consumers may expect to reborrow and may accurately predict how many times they will have to reborrow. For consumers who accurately predict their reborrowing, the Bureau is not counting their reborrowing costs as substantial injury that should be placed on the “injury” side of the countervailing benefits scale.

While some reborrowers end their borrowing after a relatively small number of additional loans, a large percentage of reborrowers end up in significantly longer loan sequences. Of storefront payday loan sequences, for instance, one-third percent contain seven or more loans, meaning that consumers pay finance charges equal to or greater than 100 percent of the amount borrowed. About a quarter percent of loan sequences contain 10 or more loans in succession. For vehicle title borrowers, the picture is similarly dramatic: Only 23 percent of loan sequences taken out by vehicle title reborrowers are repaid after two or three successive loans whereas 23 percent of sequences are for 10 or more loans in succession. The Bureau does not believe any significant number of consumers anticipate such lengthy sequences.

Thus, the Bureau believes that the substantial injury suffered by the defaulters and reborrowers—the categories that represent the vast majority of overall short-term payday and vehicle title borrowers—dwarfs any benefits these groups of borrowers may receive in terms of a temporary reprieve and also dwarfs the speed and convenience benefits that the repayers may experience. The Bureau acknowledges that any benefits derived by the aforementioned “false negatives” may be reduced under the proposed rule, but the Bureau believes that the benefits this relatively small group receives is outweighed by the substantial injuries to the defaulters and reborrowers as discussed above. Further, the Bureau believes that under the proposed intervention, many of these borrowers may find more sustainable options, such as underwritten credit on terms that are tailored to their budget and more affordable.

Turning to benefits of the practice for competition, the Bureau acknowledges, as discussed further in part II, that the current practice of lending without regard to consumers' ability to repay has enabled the payday industry to build a business model in which 50 percent or more of the revenue comes from consumers who borrow 10 or more times in succession. This, in turn, has enabled a substantial number of firms to extend such loans from a substantial number of storefront locations. As discussed in part II, the Bureau estimates that the top ten storefront payday lenders control only about half of the market, and that there are 3,300 storefront payday lenders that are small entities as defined by the SBA. The Bureau also acknowledges that, as discussed above and further in part VI, the anticipated effect of limiting lenders to loans that consumers can afford to repay will be to substantially shrink the number of loans per consumer which may, in turn, result in a more highly concentrated markets in some geographic areas. Moreover, the current practice enables to lenders to avoid the procedural costs that the proposed rule would impose.

However, the Bureau does not believe the proposed rule will reduce the competitiveness of the payday or vehicle title markets. As discussed in part II, most States in which such lending takes place have established a maximum price for these loans. Although in any given State there are a large number of lenders making these loans, typically in close proximity to one another, research has shown that there is generally no meaningful price competition among these firms. Rather, in general, the firms currently charge the maximum price allowed in any given State. Lenders who operate in multiple States generally vary their prices from State to State to take advantage of whatever local law allows. Thus, for example, lenders operating in Florida are permitted to charge $10 per $100 loaned, and those same lenders, when lending in South Carolina, charge $15 per $100.

In sum, it appears that the benefits of the identified unfair practice for consumers and competition do not outweigh the substantial, not reasonably avoidable injury caused or likely to be cause by the practice. On the contrary, it appears that the very significant injury caused by the practice outweighs the relatively modest benefits of the practice to consumers.

Consideration of Public Policy

Section 1031(c)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act allows the Bureau to “consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence” in determining whether a practice is unfair as long as the public policy considerations are not the primary basis of the determination. In addition to the evidence described above and in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, established public policy supports the proposed finding that it is an unfair act or practice for lenders to make covered short-term loans without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay.

Specifically, as noted above, several consumer financial statutes, regulations, and guidance documents require or recommend that covered lenders assess their customers' ability to repay before extending credit. These include the Dodd-Frank Act with regard to closed-end mortgage loans, the CARD Act with regard to credit cards, guidance from the OCC on abusive lending practices, guidance from the FDIC on small dollar lending, and guidance from the OCC and FDIC on deposit advance products. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board promulgated a rule requiring an ability-to-repay determination regarding higher priced mortgages, although that rule has since been superseded by the Dodd-Frank Act's ability-to-repay requirement and its implementation regulations which apply generally to mortgages regardless of price. In short, Congress, State legislatures, and other agencies have found consumer harm to result from lenders failing to determine that consumer have the ability to repay credit. These established policies support a finding that it is unfair for a lender to make covered short-term loans without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay, and evince public policy that supports the Bureau's proposed imposition of the consumer protections in proposed part 1041. The Bureau gives weight to this policy and bases its proposed finding that the identified practice is unfair, in part, on this significant body of public policy.

The Bureau seeks comment on the evidence and proposed findings and conclusions in proposed § 1041.4 and Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans above. As discussed further below in connection with proposed § 1041.7, the Bureau also seeks comment on whether making loans with the types of consumer protections contained in proposed § 1041.7(b) through (e) should not be included in the practice identified in proposed § 1041.4.

Section 1041.5 Ability-To-Repay Determination Required

As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.4 above, the Bureau has tentatively concluded that it is an unfair and abusive act or practice to make a covered short-term loan without reasonably determining that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan. Section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Bureau's rules may include requirements for the purpose of preventing unfair or abusive acts or practices. The Bureau is proposing to prevent the abusive and unfair practice by including in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 minimum requirements for how a lender may reasonably determine that a consumer has the ability to repay a covered short-term loan.

Proposed § 1041.5 sets forth the prohibition against making a covered short-term loan (other than a loan that satisfies the protective conditions in proposed § 1041.7) without first making a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the covered short term loan according to its terms. It also, in combination with proposed § 1041.6, specifies minimum elements of a baseline methodology that would be required for determining a consumer's ability to repay, using a residual income analysis and an assessment of the consumer's prior borrowing history. In crafting the baseline ability-to-repay methodology established in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, the Bureau is attempting to balance carefully several considerations, including the need for consumer protection, industry interests in regulatory certainty and manageable compliance burden, and preservation of access to credit.

Proposed § 1041.5 would generally require the lender to make a reasonable determination that a consumer will have sufficient income, after meeting major financial obligations, to make payments under a prospective covered short-term loan and to continue meeting basic living expenses. However, based on feedback from a wide range of stakeholders and its own internal analysis, as well as the Bureau's belief that consumer harm has resulted despite more general standards in State law, the Bureau believes that merely establishing such a general requirement would provide insufficient protection for consumers and insufficient certainty for lenders.

Many lenders have informed the Bureau that they conduct some type of underwriting on covered short-term loans and assert that it should be sufficient to meet the Bureau's standards. However, as discussed above, such underwriting often is designed to screen primarily for fraud and to assess whether the lender will be able to extract payments from the consumer. It typically makes no attempt to assess whether the consumer might be forced to forgo basic necessities or to default on other obligations in order to repay the covered loan. Moreover, such underwriting essentially treats reborrowing as a neutral or positive outcome, rather than as a sign of the consumer's distress, because reborrowing does not present a risk of loss or decreased profitability to the lender. On the contrary, new fees from each reborrowing contribute to the lender's profitability. In the Bureau's experience, industry underwriting typically goes no further than to predict the consumer's propensity to repay rather than the consumer's financial capacity (i.e., ability) to repay consistent with the consumer's other obligations and need to cover basic living expenses. Such underwriting ignores the fact that repayment may force the consumer to miss other obligations or to be unable to cover basic living expenses.

The Bureau believes that to prevent the abusive and unfair practices that appear to be occurring in the market, it would be appropriate not only to require lenders to make a reasonable determination of a consumer's ability to repay before making a covered short term loan but also to specify minimum elements of a baseline methodology for evaluating consumers' individual financial situations, including their borrowing history. The baseline methodology is not intended to be a substitute for lender screening and underwriting methods, such as those designed to screen out fraud or predict and avoid other types of lender losses. Accordingly, lenders would be permitted to supplement the baseline methodology with other underwriting and screening methods.

The baseline methodology in proposed § 1041.5 rests on a residual income analysis—that is, an analysis of whether, given the consumer's projected income and major obligations, the consumer will have sufficient remaining (i.e., residual) income to cover the payments on the proposed loan and still meet basic living expenses. The Bureau recognizes that in other markets and under other regulatory regimes financial capacity is more typically measured by establishing a maximum debt-to-income (DTI) ratio. DTI tests generally rest on the assumption that so long as a consumer's debt burden does not exceed a certain threshold percentage of the consumer's income, the remaining share of income will be sufficient for a consumer to be able meet non-debt obligations and other expenses. However, for low- and moderate-income consumers, the Bureau believes that assumption is less likely to be true: A DTI ratio that might seem quite reasonable for the “average” consumer can be quite unmanageable for a consumer at the lower end of the income spectrum and the higher end of the debt burden range. Ultimately, whether a particular loan is affordable will depend upon how much money the consumer will have left after paying existing obligations and whether that amount is sufficient to cover the proposed new obligation while still meeting basic living expenses.

In addition, in contrast with other markets in which there are long-established norms for DTI levels that are consistent with sustainable indebtedness, the Bureau does not believe that there exist analogous norms for sustainable DTI levels for consumers taking covered short-term loans. Thus, the Bureau believes that residual income is a more direct test of ability to repay than DTI and a more appropriate test with respect to the types of products covered in this rulemaking and the types of consumers to whom these loans are made.

The Bureau has designed the residual income methodology requirements specified in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 in an effort to ensure that ability-to-repay determinations can be made through scalable underwriting models. The Bureau is proposing that the most critical inputs into the determination rest on documentation but the Bureau's proposed methodology would allow for various means of documenting major financial obligations and also establishes alternatives to documentation where appropriate. It recognizes that rent, in particular, often cannot be readily documented and therefore would allow for estimation of rental expense. See the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(D), below. The Bureau's proposed methodology also would not mandate verification or detailed analysis of every individual consumer expenditure. The Bureau believes that such detailed analysis may not be the only method to prevent unaffordable loans and is concerned that it would substantially increase costs to lenders and borrowers. See the discussion of basic living expenses, below.

Finally, the Bureau's proposed methodology would not dictate a formulaic answer to whether, in a particular case, a consumer's residual income is sufficient to make a particular loan affordable. Instead, the proposed methodology would allow lenders to exercise discretion in arriving at a reasonable determination with respect to that question. Because this type of underwriting is so different from what many lenders currently engage in, the Bureau is particularly conscious of the need to leave room for lenders to innovate and refine their methods over time, including by building automated systems to assess a consumer's ability to repay so long as the basic elements are taken into account.

Proposed § 1041.5 outlines the methodology for assessing the consumer's residual income as part of the assessment of ability to repay. Proposed § 1041.5(a) would set forth definitions used throughout proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. Proposed § 1041.5(b) would establish the requirement for a lender to determine that a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan and would set forth minimum standards for a reasonable determination that a consumer will have the ability to repay such a covered loan. The standards in proposed § 1041.5(b) would generally require a lender to determine that the consumer's income will be sufficient for the consumer to make payments under a covered short-term loan while accounting for the consumer's payments for major financial obligations and the consumer's basic living expenses. Proposed § 1041.5(c) would establish standards for verification and projections of a consumer's income and major financial obligations on which the lender would be required to base its determination under proposed § 1041.5. Proposed § 1041.6 would impose certain additional presumptions, prohibitions, and requirements where the consumer's reborrowing during the term of the loan or shortly after having a prior loan outstanding suggests that the prior loan was not affordable for the consumer, so that the consumer may have particular difficulty in repaying a new covered short-term loan with similar repayment terms.

In explaining the requirements of the various provisions of proposed § 1041.5, the Bureau is mindful that substantially all of the loans being made today which would fall within the definition of covered short-term loans are single-payment loans, either payday loans or single-payment vehicle title loans. The Bureau recognizes, however, that the definition of covered short-term loan could encompass loans with multiple payments and a term of 45 days or less, for example, a 30-day loan payable in two installments. Accordingly, in the discussion that follows, the Bureau generally refers to payments in the plural and uses phrases such as the “highest payment due.” For most covered short-term loans the highest payment would be the only payment and the determinations required by proposed § 1041.5 would be made only for a single payment and the 30 days following such payment.

As an alternative to the proposed ability-to-repay requirement, the Bureau considered whether lenders should be required to provide disclosures to borrowers warning them of the costs and risks of reborrowing, default, and collateral harms from unaffordable payments associated with taking out covered short-term loans. However, the Bureau believes that such a disclosure remedy would be significantly less effective in preventing the consumer harms described above, for three reasons.

First, disclosures do not address the underlying incentives in this market for lenders to encourage borrowers to reborrow and take out long sequences of loans. As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the prevailing business model involves lenders deriving a very high percentage of their revenues from long loan sequences. While enhanced disclosures would provide additional information to consumers, the loans would remain unaffordable for consumers, lenders would have no greater incentive to underwrite more rigorously, and lenders would remain dependent on long-term loan sequences for revenues.

Second, empirical evidence suggests that disclosures have only modest impacts on consumer borrowing patterns for short-term loans generally and negligible impacts on whether consumers reborrow. Evidence from a field trial of several disclosures designed specifically to warn of the risks of reborrowing and the costs of reborrowing showed that these disclosures had a marginal effect on the total volume of payday borrowing. Further, the Bureau has analyzed the impacts of the change in law in Texas (effective January 1, 2012) requiring payday lenders and short-term vehicle title lenders to provide a new disclosure to prospective borrowers before each payday loan transaction. The Bureau observed that with respect to payday loan transactions, using the Bureau's supervisory data, there was an overall 13 percent decline in loan volume in Texas after the disclosure requirement went into effect, relative to the loan volume changes for the study period in comparison States. The Bureau's analysis of the impacts of the Texas disclosures also shows that the probability of reborrowing on a payday loan declined by approximately 2 percent once the disclosure was put in place. This finding indicates that high levels of reborrowing and long sequences of payday loans remain a significant source of consumer harm even with a disclosure regime in place. Further, as discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the Bureau has observed that borrowers have a very high probability of winding up in a very long sequence once they have taken out only a few loans in a row. The contrast of the extremely high likelihood that a consumer will wind up in a long-term debt cycle after taking out only a few loans with the near negligible impact of a disclosure on consumer reborrowing patterns provides further evidence of the insufficiency of disclosures to address what the Bureau believes are the core harms to consumers in this credit market.

Third, as discussed in part VI, the Bureau believes that behavioral factors make it likely that disclosures to consumers taking out covered short-term loans would be ineffective in warning consumers of the risks and preventing the harms that the Bureau seeks to address with the proposal. Due to the potential for tunneling in their decision-making and general optimism bias, as discussed in more detail in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, consumers are likely to dismiss warnings of possible negative outcomes as not applying to them, and to not focus on disclosures of the possible harms associated with outcomes—reborrowing and default—that they do not anticipate experiencing themselves. To the extent the borrowers have thought about the likelihood that they themselves will reborrow or default (or both) on a loan, a general warning about how often people reborrow or default (or both) is unlikely to cause them to revise their own expectations about the chances they themselves will reborrow or default (or both).

The Bureau requests comment on the appropriateness of all aspects of the proposed approach. For example, the Bureau requests comment on whether a simple prohibition on making covered short-term loans without determining ability to repay, without specifying the elements of a minimum baseline methodology, would provide adequate protection to consumers and clarity to industry about what would constitute compliance. Similarly, the Bureau requests comment on the adequacy of a less prescriptive requirement for lenders to “consider” specified factors, such as payment amount under a covered short-term loan, income, debt service payments, and borrowing history, rather than a requirement to determine that residual income is sufficient. (Such an approach could be similar to that of the Bureau's ability-to-repay requirements for residential mortgage loans.) Specifically, the Bureau requests comment on whether there currently exist sufficient norms around the levels of such factors that are and are not consistent with a consumer's ability to repay, such that a requirement for a lender to “consider” such factors would provide adequate consumer protection, as well as adequate certainty for lenders regarding what determinations of ability to repay would and would not reflect sufficient consideration of those factors.

Also during outreach, some stakeholders suggested that the Bureau should adopt underwriting rules of thumb—for example, a maximum payment-to-income (PTI) ratio—to either presumptively or conclusively demonstrate compliance with the rule. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the Bureau should define such rules of thumb and, if so, what metrics should be included in a final rule and what significance should be given to such metrics.

5(a) Definitions

Proposed § 1041.5(a) would provide definitions of several terms used in proposed § 1041.5 in assessing the consumer's financial situation and proposed § 1041.6 in assessing consumers' borrowing history before determining whether a consumer has the ability to repay a new covered short-term loan. In particular, proposed § 1041.5(a) includes definitions for various categories of income and expenses that are used in proposed § 1041.5(b), which would establish the methodology that would generally be required for assessing consumers' ability to repay covered short-term loans. The substantive requirements for making the calculations for each category of income and expenses, as well as the overall determination of a consumer's ability to repay, are provided in proposed § 1041.5(b) and (c), and in their respective commentary. These proposed definitions are discussed in detail below.

5(a)(1) Basic Living Expenses

Proposed § 1041.5(a)(1) would define the basic living expenses component of the ability-to-repay determination that would be required in proposed § 1041.5(b). It would define basic living expenses as expenditures, other than payments for major financial obligations, that a consumer makes for goods and services necessary to maintain the consumer's health, welfare, and ability to produce income, and the health and welfare of members of the consumer's household who are financially dependent on the consumer. Proposed § 1041.5(b) would require the lender to reasonably determine a dollar amount that is sufficiently large so that the consumer would likely be able to make the loan payments and meet basic living expenses without having to default on major financial obligations or having to rely on new consumer credit during the applicable period.

Accordingly, the proposed definition of basic living expenses is a principle-based definition and does not provide a comprehensive list of the expenses for which a lender must account. Proposed comment 5(a)(1)-1 provides illustrative examples of expenses that would be covered by the definition. It provides that food and utilities are examples of goods and services that are necessary for maintaining health and welfare, and that transportation to and from a place of employment and daycare for dependent children, if applicable, are examples of goods and services that are necessary for maintaining the ability to produce income.

The Bureau recognizes that provision of a principle-based definition leaves some ambiguity about, for example, what types and amounts of goods and services are “necessary” for the stated purposes. Lenders would have flexibility in how they determine dollar amounts that meet the proposed definition, provided that they do not rely on amounts that are so low that they are not reasonable for consumers to pay for the types and level of expenses in the definition.

The Bureau's proposed methodology also would not mandate verification or detailed analysis of every individual consumer expenditure. In contrast to major financial obligations (see below), a consumer's recent expenditures may not necessarily reflect the amounts a consumer needs for basic living expenses during the term of a prospective loan, and the Bureau is concerned that such a requirement could substantially increase costs for lenders and consumers while adding little protection for consumers.

The Bureau solicits comment on its principle-based approach to defining basic living expenses, including whether limitation of the definition to “necessary” expenses is appropriate, and whether an alternative, more prescriptive approach would be preferable. For example, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the definition should include, rather than expenses of the types and in amounts that are “necessary” for the purposes specified in the proposed definition, expenses of the types that are likely to recur through the term of the loan and in amounts below which a consumer cannot realistically reduce them. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether there are standards used in other contexts that could be relied upon by the Bureau. For example, the Bureau is aware that the Internal Revenue Service and bankruptcy courts have their own respective standards for calculating amounts an individual needs for expenses while making payments toward a delinquent tax liability or under a bankruptcy-related repayment plan.

5(a)(2) Major Financial Obligations

Proposed § 1041.5(a)(2) would define the major financial obligations component of the ability-to-repay determination specified in proposed § 1041.5(b). Proposed § 1041.5(b) would generally require a lender to determine that a consumer will have sufficient residual income, which is net income after subtracting amounts already committed for making payments for major financial obligations, to make payments under a prospective covered short term loan and to meet basic living expenses. Payments for major financial obligations would be subject to the consumer statement and verification evidence provisions under proposed § 1041.5(c)(3).

Specifically, proposed § 1041.5(a)(2) would define the term to mean a consumer's housing expense, minimum payments and any delinquent amounts due under debt obligations (including outstanding covered loans), and court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations. Comment 5(a)(2)-1 would further clarify that housing expense includes the total periodic amount that the consumer applying for the loan is responsible for paying, such as the amount the consumer owes to a landlord for rent or to a creditor for a mortgage. It would provide that minimum payments under debt obligations include periodic payments for automobile loan payments, student loan payments, other covered loan payments, and minimum required credit card payments.

Expenses that the Bureau has included in the proposed definition are expenses that are typically recurring, that can be significant in the amount of a consumer's income that they consume, and that a consumer has little or no ability to change, reduce or eliminate in the short run, relative to their levels up until application for a covered short-term loan. The Bureau believes that the extent to which a particular consumer's net income is already committed to making such payments is highly relevant to determining whether that consumer has the ability to make payments under a prospective covered short-term loan. As a result, the Bureau believes that a lender should be required to inquire about such payments, that they should be subject to verification for accuracy and completeness to the extent feasible, and that a lender should not be permitted to rely on consumer income already committed to such payments in determining a consumer's ability to repay. Expenses included in the proposed definition are roughly analogous to those included in total monthly debt obligations for calculating monthly debt-to-income ratio and monthly residual income under the Bureau's ability-to-repay requirements for certain residential mortgage loans. (See 12 CFR 1026.43(c)(7)(i)(A).)

The Bureau has adjusted its approach to major financial obligations based on feedback from SERs and other industry stakeholders on the Small Business Review Panel Outline. In the SBREFA process, the Bureau stated that it was considering including within the category of major financial obligations “other legally required payments,” such as alimony, and that the Bureau had considered an alternative approach that would have included utility payments and regular medical expenses. However, the Bureau now believes that it would be unduly burdensome to require lenders to make individualized projections of a consumer's utility or medical expenses. With respect to alimony, the Bureau believes that relatively few consumers seeking covered loans have readily verifiable alimony obligations and that, accordingly, inquiring about alimony obligations would impose unnecessary burden. The Bureau also is not including a category of “other legally required payments” because the Bureau believes that category, which was included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, would leave too much ambiguity about what other payments are covered. For further discussion of burden on small businesses associated with verification requirements, see the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.5(c)(3), below.

The Bureau invites comment on whether the items included in the proposed definition of major financial obligations are appropriate, whether other items should be included and, if so, whether and how the items should be subject to verification. For example, the Bureau invites comment on whether there are other obligations that are typically recurring, significant, and not changeable by the consumer, such as, for example, alimony, daycare commitments, health insurance premiums (other than premiums deducted from a consumer's paycheck, which are already excluded from the proposed definition of net income), or unavoidable medical expenses. The Bureau likewise invites comment on whether there are types of payments to which a consumer may be contractually obligated, such as payments or portions of payments under contracts for telecommunication services, that a consumer is unable to reduce from their amounts as of consummation, such that the payments should be included in the definition of major financial obligations. The Bureau also invites comment on the inclusion in the proposed definition of delinquent amounts due, such as on the practicality of asking consumers about delinquent amounts due on major financial obligations, of comparing stated amounts to any delinquent amounts that may be included in verification evidence (e.g., in a national consumer report), and of accounting for such amounts in projecting a consumer's residual income during the term of the prospective loan. The Bureau also invites comment on whether the Bureau should specify additional rules for addressing major financial obligations that are joint obligations of a consumer applying for a covered short-term loan (and of a consumer who is not applying for the loan), or whether the provision in proposed § 1041.5(c)(1) allowing lenders to consider consumer explanations and other evidence is sufficient.

5(a)(3) National Consumer Report

Proposed § 1041.5(a)(3) would define national consumer report to mean a consumer report, as defined in section 603(d) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d), obtained from a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis, as defined in section 603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(p). Proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii) would require a lender to obtain a national consumer report as verification evidence for a consumer's required payments under debt obligations and required payments under court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations. Reports that meet the proposed definition are often referred to informally as a credit report or credit history from one of the three major credit reporting agencies or bureaus. A national consumer report may be furnished to a lender from a consumer reporting agency that is not a nationwide consumer reporting agency, such as a consumer reporting agency that is a reseller.

5(a)(4) Net Income

Proposed § 1041.5(a)(4) would define the net income component of the ability-to-repay determination calculation specified in proposed § 1041.5(b). Specifically, it would define the term as the total amount that a consumer receives after the payer deducts amounts for taxes, other obligations, and voluntary contributions that the consumer has directed the payer to deduct, but before deductions of any amounts for payments under a prospective covered short term loan or for any major financial obligation. Proposed § 1041.5(b) would generally require a lender to determine that a consumer will have sufficient residual income to make payments under a prospective covered short-term loan and to meet basic living expenses. Proposed § 1041.5(a)(6), discussed below, would define residual income as the sum of net income that the lender projects the consumer will receive during a period, minus the sum of amounts that the lender projects will be payable by the consumer for major financial obligations during the period. Net income would be subject to the consumer statement and verification evidence provisions under proposed § 1041.5(c)(3).

The proposed definition is similar to what is commonly referred to as “take-home pay” but is phrased broadly to apply to income received from employment, government benefits, or other sources. It would exclude virtually all amounts deducted by the payer of the income, whether deductions are required or voluntary, such as voluntary insurance premiums or union dues. The Bureau believes that the total dollar amount that a consumer actually receives after all such deductions is the amount that is most instructive in determining a consumer's ability to repay. Certain deductions (e.g., taxes) are beyond the consumer's control. Other deductions may not be revocable, at least for a significant period of time, as a result of contractual obligations to which the consumer has entered. Even with respect to purely voluntary deductions, most consumers are unlikely to be able to reduce or eliminate such deductions, between consummation of a loan and the time when payments under the loan would fall due. The Bureau also believes that the net amount a consumer actually receives after all such deductions is likely to be the amount most readily known to consumers applying for a covered short-term loan (rather than, for example, periodic gross income) and is also the amount that is most readily verifiable by lenders through a variety of methods. The proposed definition would clarify, however, that net income is calculated before deductions of any amounts for payments under a prospective covered short-term loan or for any major financial obligation. The Bureau proposes the clarification to prevent double counting any such amounts when making the ability-to-repay determination.

The Bureau invites comment on the proposed definition of net income and whether further guidance would be helpful.

5(a)(5) Payment Under the Covered Short-Term Loan

Proposed § 1041.5(a)(5) would define payment under the covered short-term loan, which is a component of the ability-to-repay determination calculation specified in proposed § 1041.5(b). Proposed § 1041.5(b) would generally require a lender to determine that a consumer will have sufficient residual income to make payments under a covered short-term loan and to meet basic living expenses. Specifically, the definition of payment under the covered short-term loan in proposed § 1041.5(a)(5)(i) and (ii) would include all costs payable by the consumer at a particular time after consummation, regardless of how the costs are described in an agreement or whether they are payable to the lender or a third party. Proposed § 1041.5(a)(5)(iii) provides special rules for projecting payments under the covered short-term loan on lines of credit for purposes of the ability to repay test, since actual payments for lines of credit may vary depending on usage.

Proposed § 1041.5(a)(5)(i) would apply to all covered short-term loans. It would define payment under the covered short-term loan broadly to mean the combined dollar amount payable by the consumer in connection with the covered short-term loan at a particular time following consummation. Under proposed § 1041.5(b), the lender would be required to reasonably determine the payment amount under this proposed definition as of the time of consummation. The proposed definition would further provide that, for short-term loans with multiple payments, in calculating each payment under the covered loan, the lender must assume that the consumer has made preceding required payments and that the consumer has not taken any affirmative act to extend or restructure the repayment schedule or to suspend, cancel, or delay payment for any product, service, or membership provided in connection with the covered loan. Proposed § 1041.5(a)(5)(ii) would similarly apply to all covered short-term loans and would clarify that payment under the covered loan includes all principal, interest, charges, and fees.

The Bureau believes that a broad definition, such as the one proposed, is necessary to capture the full dollar amount payable by the consumer in connection with the covered short-term loan, including amounts for voluntary insurance or memberships and regardless of whether amounts are due to the lender or another person. It is the total dollar amount due at each particular time that is relevant to determining whether or not a consumer has the ability to repay the loan based on the consumer's projected net income and payments for major financial obligations. The amount of the payment is what is important, not whether the components of the payment include principal, interest, fees, insurance premiums, or other charges. The Bureau recognizes, however, that under the terms of some covered short-term loans, a consumer may have options regarding how much the consumer must pay at any given time and that the consumer may in some cases be able to select a different payment option. The proposed definition would include any amount payable by a consumer in the absence of any affirmative act by the consumer to extend or restructure the repayment schedule, or to suspend, cancel, or delay payment for any product, service, or membership provided in connection with the covered short-term loan. Proposed comment 5(a)(5)(i) and 5(a)(5)(ii)-1 includes three examples applying the proposed definition to scenarios in which the payment under the covered short-term loan includes several components, including voluntary fees owed to a person other than the lender, as well as scenarios in which the consumer has the option of making different payment amounts.

Proposed § 1041.5(a)(5)(iii) would include additional provisions for calculating the projected payment amount under a covered line of credit for purposes of assessing a consumer's ability to repay the loan. As explained in proposed comment 5(a)(5)(iii)-1, such rules are necessary because the amount and timing of the consumer's actual payments on a line of credit after consummation may depend on the consumer's utilization of the credit (i.e., the amount the consumer has drawn down) or on amounts that the consumer has repaid prior to the payments in question. As a result, if the definition of payment under the covered short-term loan did not specify assumptions about consumer utilization and repayment under a line of credit, there would be uncertainty as to the amounts and timing of payments to which the ability-to-repay requirement applies. Proposed § 1041.5(a)(5)(iii) therefore would prescribe assumptions that a lender must make in calculating the payment under the covered short-term loan. It would require the lender to assume that the consumer will utilize the full amount of credit under the covered loan as soon as the credit is available to the consumer and that the consumer will make only minimum required payments under the covered loan. The lender would then apply the ability-to-repay determination to that assumed repayment schedule.

The Bureau believes these assumptions about a consumer's utilization and repayment are important to ensure that the lender makes its ability-to-repay determination based on the most challenging loan payment that a consumer may face under the covered loan. They also reflect what the Bureau believes to be the likely borrowing and repayment behavior of many consumers who obtain covered loans with a line of credit. Such consumers are typically facing an immediate liquidity need and, in light of the relatively high cost of credit, would normally seek a line of credit approximating the amount of the need. Assuming the lender does not provide a line of credit well in excess of the consumer's need, the consumer is then likely to draw down the full amount of the line of credit shortly after consummation. Liquidity-constrained consumers may make only minimum required payments under a line of credit and, if the terms of the covered loan provide for an end date, may then face having to repay the outstanding balance in one payment at a time specified under the terms of the covered short-term loan. It is such a payment that is likely to be the highest payment possible under the terms of the covered short-term loan and therefore the payment for which a consumer is least likely to have the ability to repay.

The Bureau invites comment on the proposed definition of payment under the covered short-term loan. Specifically, the Bureau invites comment on whether the provisions of proposed § 1041.5(a)(5) are sufficiently comprehensive and clear to allow for determination of payment amounts under covered short-term loans, especially for lines of credit.

5(a)(6) Residual Income

Proposed § 1041.5(a)(6) would define the residual income component of the ability-to-repay determination calculation specified in proposed § 1041.5(b). Specifically, it would define the term as the sum of net income that the lender projects the consumer obligated under the loan will receive during a period, minus the sum of amounts that the lender projects will be payable by the consumer for major financial obligations during the period, all of which projected amounts must be based on verification evidence, as provided under proposed § 1041.5(c). Proposed § 1041.5(b) would generally require a lender to determine that a consumer will have sufficient residual income to make payments under a covered short-term loan and to meet basic living expenses.

The proposed definition would ensure that a lender's ability-to-repay determination cannot rely on the amount of a consumer's net income that, as of the time a prospective loan would be consummated, is already committed to pay for major financial obligations during the applicable period. For example, a consumer's net income may be greater than the amount of a loan payment, so that the lender successfully obtains the loan payment from a consumer's deposit account once the consumer's income is deposited into the account. But if the consumer is then left with insufficient funds to make payments for major financial obligations, such as a rent payment, then the consumer may be forced to choose between failing to pay rent when due, forgoing basic needs, or reborrowing.

5(b) Reasonable Determination Required

Proposed § 1041.5(b) would prohibit lenders from making covered short-term loans without first making a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan according to its terms, unless the loans are made in accordance with proposed § 1041.7. Specifically, proposed § 1041.5(b)(1) would require lenders to make a reasonable determination of ability to repay before making a new covered short-term loan, increasing the credit available under an existing loan, or before advancing additional credit under a covered line of credit if more than 180 days have expired since the last such determination. Proposed § 1041.5(b)(2) specifies minimum elements of a baseline methodology that would be required for determining a consumer's ability to repay, using a residual income analysis and an assessment of the consumer's prior borrowing history. It would require the assessment to be based on projections of the consumer's net income, major financial obligations, and basic living expenses that are made in accordance with proposed § 1041.5(c). It would require that, using such projections, the lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make all payments under the loan and still meet basic living expenses during the term of the loan. It would further require that a lender must conclude that the consumer, after making the highest payment under the loan (typically, the last payment), will continue to be able to meet major financial obligations as they fall due and meet basic living expenses for a period of 30 additional days. Finally, proposed § 1041.5(b)(2) would require that, in situations in which the consumer's recent borrowing history suggests that she may have difficulty repaying a new loan as specified in proposed § 1041.6, a lender must satisfy the requirements in proposed § 1041.6 before extending credit.

5(b)(1)

Proposed § 1041.5(b)(1) would provide generally that, except as provided in § 1041.7, a lender must not make a covered short-term loan or increase the credit available under a covered short-term loan unless the lender first makes a reasonable determination of ability to repay for the covered short-term loan. The provision would also impose a requirement to determine a consumer's ability to repay before advancing additional funds under a covered short-term loan that is a line of credit if such advance would occur more than 180 days after the date of a previous required determination.

Proposed § 1041.5(b)(1)(i) would provide that a lender is not required to make the determination when it makes a covered short-term loan under the conditions set forth in § 1041.7. The conditions that apply under § 1041.7 provide alternative protections from the harms caused by covered short-term loan payments that exceed a consumer's ability to repay, such that the Bureau is proposing to allow lenders to make such loans in accordance with the regulation without engaging in an ability-to-repay determination under §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. (See the discussions of § 1041.7, below.)

The Bureau notes that proposed § 1041.5(b)(1) would require the ability-to-repay determination before a lender actually takes one of the triggering actions. The Bureau recognizes that lenders decline covered loan applications for a variety of reasons, including to prevent fraud, avoid possible losses, and to comply with State law or other regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the requirements of § 1041.5(b)(1) would not require a lender to make the ability-to-repay determination for every covered short-term loan application it receives, but rather only before taking one of the enumerated actions with respect to a covered short-term loan. Similarly, nothing in proposed § 1041.5(b)(1) would prohibit a lender from applying screening or underwriting approaches in addition to those required under proposed § 1041.5(b) prior to making a covered short-term loan.

Proposed § 1041.5(b)(1)(ii) would provide that, for a covered short-term loan that is a line of credit, a lender must not permit a consumer to obtain an advance under the line of credit more than 180 days after the date of a prior required determination, unless the lender first makes a new reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the covered short-term loan. Under a line of credit, a consumer typically can obtain advances up to the maximum available credit at the consumer's discretion, often long after the covered loan was consummated. Each time the consumer obtains an advance under a line of credit, the consumer becomes obligated to make a new payment or series of payments based on the terms of the covered loan. But when significant time has elapsed since the date of a lender's prior required determination, the facts on which the lender relied in determining the consumer's ability to repay may have changed significantly. During the Bureau's outreach to industry, the Small Dollar Roundtable urged the Bureau to require a lender to periodically make a new reasonable determination of ability to repay in connection with a covered loan that is a line of credit. The Bureau believes that the proposed requirement to make a new determination of ability to repay for a line of credit 180 days following a prior required determination appropriately balances the burden on lenders and the protective benefit for consumers.

Reasonable Determination

Proposed § 1041.5(b) would require a lender to make a reasonable determination that a consumer will be able to repay a covered short-term loan according to its terms. As discussed above and as reflected in the provisions of proposed § 1041.5(b), a consumer has the ability to repay a covered short-term loan according to its terms only if the consumer is able to make all payments under the covered loan as they fall due while also making payments under the consumer's major financial obligations as they fall due and continuing to meet basic living expenses without, as a result of making payments under the covered loan, having to reborrow.

Proposed comment 5(b)-1 provides an overview of the baseline methodology that would be required as part of a reasonable determination of a consumer's ability to repay in proposed §§ 1041.5(b)(2) and (c) and 1041.6.

Proposed comment 5(b)-2 would identify standards for evaluating whether a lender's ability-to-repay determinations under proposed § 1041.5 are reasonable. It would clarify minimum requirements of a reasonable ability-to-repay determination; identify assumptions that, if relied upon by the lender, render a determination not reasonable; and establish that the overall performance of a lender's covered short-term loans is evidence of whether the lender's determinations for those covered loans are reasonable.

The proposed standards would not impose bright line rules prohibiting covered short-term loans based on fixed mathematical ratios or similar distinctions. Moreover, the Bureau does not anticipate that a lender would need to perform a manual analysis of each prospective loan to determine whether it meets all of the proposed standards. Instead, each lender would be required under proposed § 1041.18 to develop and implement policies and procedures for approving and making covered loans in compliance with the proposed standards and based on the types of covered loans that the lender makes. A lender would then apply its own policies and procedures to its underwriting decisions, which the Bureau anticipates could be largely automated for the majority of consumers and covered loans.

Minimum requirements. Proposed comment 5(b)-2.i would describe some of the specific respects in which a lender's determination must be reasonable. For example, it would note that the determination must include the applicable determinations provided in proposed § 1041.5(b)(2), be based on reasonable projections of a consumer's net income and major financial obligations in accordance with proposed § 1041.5(c), be based on reasonable estimates of a consumer's basic living expenses under proposed § 1041.5(b), and appropriately account for the possibility of volatility in a consumer's income and basic living expenses during the term of the loan under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i). It would also have to be consistent with the lender's written policies and procedures required under proposed § 1041.18(b).

Proposed comment 5(b)-2.i would also provide that to be reasonable, a lender's ability-to-repay determination must be grounded in reasonable inferences and conclusions in light of information the lender is required to obtain or consider. As discussed above, each lender would be required under proposed § 1041.18 to develop policies and procedures for approving and making covered loans in compliance with the proposal. The policies and procedures would specify the conclusions that the lender makes based on information it obtains, and lenders would then be able to largely automate application of those policies and procedures for most consumers. For example, proposed § 1041.5(c) would require a lender to obtain verification evidence for a consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations, but it would provide for lender discretion in resolving any ambiguities in the verification evidence to project what the consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations will be following consummation of the covered short-term loan.

Finally, proposed comment 5(b)-2.i would provide that for a lender's ability-to-repay determination to be reasonable, the lender must appropriately account for information known by the lender, whether or not the lender is required to obtain the information under proposed § 1041.5, that indicates that the consumer may not have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan according to its terms. The provision would not require a lender to obtain information other than information specified in proposed § 1041.5. However, a lender might become aware of information that casts doubt on whether a particular consumer would have the ability to repay a particular prospective covered short-term loan. For example, proposed § 1041.5 would not require a lender to inquire about a consumer's individual transportation or medical expenses, and the lender's ability-to-repay method might comply with the proposed requirement to estimate consumers' basic living expenses by factoring into the estimate of basic living expenses a normal allowance for expenses of this type. But if the lender learned that a particular consumer had a transportation or recurring medical expense dramatically in excess of an amount the lender used in estimating basic living expenses for consumers generally, proposed comment 5(b)-2.i would clarify that the lender could not simply ignore that fact. Instead, it would have to consider the transportation or medical expense and then reach a reasonable determination that the expense does not negate the lender's otherwise reasonable ability-to-repay determination.

Similarly, in reviewing borrowing history records a lender might learn that the consumer completed a three-loan sequence of covered short-term loans made either under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 or under proposed § 1041.7, waited for 30 days before seeking to reborrow as required by proposed § 1041.6 or proposed § 1041.7 and then sought to borrow on the first permissible day under those sections, and that this has been a recurring pattern for the consumer in the past. While the fact that the consumer on more than one occasion has sought a loan on the first possible day that the consumer is free to do so may be attributable to new needs that arose following the conclusion of each prior sequence, an alternative—and perhaps more likely explanation—is that the consumer's consistent need to borrow as soon as possible is attributable to spillover effects from having repaid the last loan sequence. In these circumstances, a lender's decision that the consumer has the ability to repay a new loan of the same amount and on the same terms as the prior loans might not be reasonable if the lender did not take into account these circumstances.

The Bureau invites comments on the minimum requirements for making a reasonable determination of ability to repay, including whether additional specificity should be provided in the regulation text or in the commentary with respect to circumstances in which a lender is required to take into account information known by the lender.

Determinations that are not reasonable. Proposed comment 5(b)-2.ii would provide an example of an ability-to-repay determination that is not reasonable. The example is a determination that relies on an assumption that the consumer will obtain additional consumer credit to be able to make payments under the covered short-term loan, to make payments under major financial obligations, or to meet basic living expenses. The Bureau believes that a consumer whose net income would be sufficient to make payments under a prospective covered short-term loan, to make payments under major financial obligations, and to meet basic living expenses during the applicable period only if the consumer supplements that net income by borrowing additional consumer credit is a consumer who, by definition, lacks the ability to repay the prospective covered short-term loan. Although the Bureau believes this reasoning is clear, it is proposing the commentary example because some lenders have argued that the mere fact that a lender successfully secures repayment of the full amount due from a consumer's deposit account shows that the consumer had the ability to repay the loan, even if the consumer then immediately has to reborrow to meet the consumer's other obligations and expenses. Inclusion of the example in commentary would confirm that an ability-to-repay determination is not reasonable if it relies on an implicit assumption that a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan for the reason that the consumer will obtain further consumer credit to make payments under major financial obligations or to meet basic living expenses.

The Bureau invites comment on whether it would be useful to articulate additional specific examples of ability-to-repay determinations that are not reasonable, and if so which specific examples should be listed. In this regard, the Bureau has considered whether there are any circumstances under which basing an ability-to-repay determination for a covered short-term loan on assumed future borrowing or assumed future accumulation of savings would be reasonable, particularly in light of the nature of consumer circumstances when they take out such loans. The Bureau seeks comment on this question.

Performance of a lender's short-term covered loans as evidence. In determining whether a lender has complied with the requirements of proposed § 1041.5, there is a threshold question of whether the lender has carried out the required procedural steps, for example by obtaining consumer statements and verification evidence, projecting net income and payments under major financial obligations, and making determinations about the sufficiency of a consumer's residual income. In some cases, a lender might have carried out these steps but still have violated § 1041.5 by making determinations that are facially unreasonable, such as if a lender's determinations assume that a consumer needs amounts to meet basic living expenses that are clearly insufficient for that purpose.

In other cases the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a lender's determinations might be less clear. Accordingly, proposed comment 5(b)-2.iii would provide that evidence of whether a lender's determinations of ability to repay are reasonable may include the extent to which the lender's determinations subject to proposed § 1041.5 result in rates of delinquency, default, and reborrowing for covered short-term loans that are low, equal to, or high, including in comparison to the rates of other lenders making similar covered loans to similarly situated consumers.

As discussed above, the Bureau recognizes that the affordability of loan payments is not the only factor that affects whether a consumer repays a covered loan according to its terms without reborrowing. A particular consumer may obtain a covered loan with payments that are within the consumer's ability to repay at the time of consummation, but factors such as the consumer's continual opportunity to work, willingness to repay, and financial management may affect the performance of that consumer's loan. Similarly, a particular consumer may obtain a covered loan with payments that exceed the consumer's ability to repay at the time of consummation, but factors such as a lender's use of a leveraged payment mechanism, taking of vehicle security, and collection tactics, as well as the consumer's ability to access informal credit from friends or relatives, might result in repayment of the loan without indicia of harm that are visible through observations of loan performance and reborrowing. However, if a lender's determinations subject to proposed § 1041.5 regularly result in rates of delinquency, default, or reborrowing that are significantly higher than those of other lenders making similar short-term covered loans to similarly situated consumers, that fact is evidence that the lender may be systematically underestimating amounts that consumers generally need for basic living expenses, or is in some other way overestimating consumers' ability to repay.

Proposed comment 5(b)-2.iii would not mean that a lender's compliance with the requirements of proposed § 1041.5 for a particular loan could be determined based on the performance of that loan. Nor would proposed comment 5(b)-2.iii mean that comparison of the performance of a lender's covered short-term loans with the performance of covered short-term loans of other lenders could be the sole basis for determining whether that lender's determinations of ability to repay comply or do not comply with the requirements of proposed § 1041.5. For example, one lender may have default rates that are much lower than the default rates of other lenders because it uses aggressive collection tactics, not because its determinations of ability to repay are reasonable. Similarly, the fact that one lender's default rates are similar to the default rates of other lenders does not necessarily indicate that the lenders' determinations of ability to repay are reasonable; the similar rates could also result from the fact that the lenders' respective determinations of ability to repay are similarly unreasonable. The Bureau believes, however, that such comparisons will provide important evidence that, considered along with other evidence, would facilitate evaluation of whether a lender's ability-to-repay determinations are reasonable.

For example, a lender may use estimates for a consumer's basic living expenses that initially appear unrealistically low, but if the lender's determinations otherwise comply with the requirements of proposed § 1041.5 and otherwise result in covered short-term loan performance that is materially better than that of peer lenders, the covered short-term loan performance may help show that the lender's determinations are reasonable. Similarly, an online lender might experience default rates significantly in excess of those of peer lenders, but other evidence may show that the lender followed policies and procedures similar to those used by other lenders and that the high default rate resulted from a high number of fraudulent applications. On the other hand, if consumers experience systematically worse rates of delinquency, default, and reborrowing on covered short-term loans made by lender A, compared to the rates of other lenders making similar loans, that fact may be important evidence of whether that lender's estimates of basic living expenses are, in fact, unrealistically low and therefore whether the lender's ability-to-repay determinations are reasonable.

The Bureau invites comment on whether and, if so, how the performance of a lender's portfolio of covered short-term loans should be factored in to an assessment of whether the lender has complied with its obligations under the rule, including whether the Bureau should specify thresholds which presumptively or conclusively establish compliance or non-compliance and, if so, how such thresholds should be determined.

Payments Under the Covered Short-Term Loan

Proposed comment 5(b)-3 notes that a lender is responsible for calculating the timing and amount of all payments under the covered short-term loan. The timing and amount of all loan payments under the covered short-term loan are an essential component of the required reasonable determination of a consumer's ability to repay under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii). Calculation of the timing and amount of all payments under a covered loan is also necessary to determine which component determinations under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) apply to a particular prospective covered loan. Proposed comment 5(b)-3 cross references the definition of payment under a covered short-term loan in proposed § 1041.5(a)(5), which includes requirements and assumptions that apply to a lender's calculation of the amount and timing of all payments under a covered short-term loan.

Basic Living Expenses

A lender's ability-to-repay determination under proposed § 1041.5(b) would be required to account for a consumer's need to meet basic living expenses during the applicable period while also making payments for major financial obligations and payments under a covered short-term loan. As discussed above, proposed § 1041.5(a)(1) would define basic living expenses as expenditures, other than payments for major financial obligations, that the consumer must make for goods and services that are necessary to maintain the consumer's health, welfare, and ability to produce income, and the health and welfare of members of the consumer's household who are financially dependent on the consumer. If a lender's ability-to-repay determination did not account for a consumer's need to meet basic living expenses, and instead merely determined that a consumer's net income is sufficient to make payments for major financial obligations and for the covered short-term loan, the determination would greatly overestimate a consumer's ability to repay a covered short-term loan and would be unreasonable. Doing so would be the equivalent of determining, under the Bureau's ability-to-repay rule for residential mortgage loans, that a consumer has the ability to repay a mortgage from income even if that mortgage would result in a debt-to-income ratio of 100 percent. The Bureau believes there would be nearly universal consensus that such a determination would be unreasonable.

However, the Bureau recognizes that in contrast with payments under most major financial obligations, which the Bureau believes a lender can usually ascertain and verify for each consumer without unreasonable burden, it would be extremely challenging to determine a complete and accurate itemization of each consumer's basic living expenses. Moreover, a consumer may have somewhat greater ability to reduce in the short-run some expenditures that do not meet the Bureau's proposed definition of major financial obligations. For example, a consumer may be able for a period of time to reduce commuting expenses by ride sharing.

Accordingly, the Bureau is not proposing to prescribe a particular method that a lender would be required to use for estimating an amount of funds that a consumer requires to meet basic living expenses for an applicable period. Instead, proposed comment 5(b)-4 would provide the principle that whether a lender's method complies with the proposed § 1041.5 requirement for a lender to make a reasonable ability-to-repay determination depends on whether it is reasonably designed to determine whether a consumer would likely be able to make the loan payments and meet basic living expenses without defaulting on major financial obligations or having to rely on new consumer credit during the applicable period.

Proposed comment 5(b)-4 would provide a non-exhaustive list of methods that may be reasonable ways to estimate basic living expenses. The first method is to set minimum percentages of income or dollar amounts based on a statistically valid survey of expenses of similarly situated consumers, taking into consideration the consumer's income, location, and household size. This example is based on a method that several lenders have told the Bureau they currently use in determining whether a consumer will have the ability to repay a loan and is consistent with the recommendations of the Small Dollar Roundtable. The Bureau notes that the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts a periodic survey of consumer expenditures which may be useful for this purpose. The Bureau invites comment on whether the example should identify consideration of a consumer's income, location, and household size as an important aspect of the method.

The second method is to obtain additional reliable information about a consumer's expenses other than the information required to be obtained under proposed § 1041.5(c), to develop a reasonably accurate estimate of a consumer's basic living expenses. The example would not mean that a lender is required to obtain this information but would clarify that doing so may be one effective method of estimating a consumer's basic living expenses. The method described in the second example may be more convenient for smaller lenders or lenders with no experience working with statistically valid surveys of consumer expenses, as described in the first example.

The third example is any method that reliably predicts basic living expenses. The Bureau is proposing to include this broadly phrased example to clarify that lenders may use innovative and data-driven methods that reliably estimate consumers' basic living expenses, even if the methods are not as intuitive as the methods in the first two examples. The Bureau would expect to evaluate the reliability of such methods by taking into account the performance of the lender's covered short-term loans in absolute terms and relative to other lenders, as discussed in proposed comment 5(b)-3.iii.

Proposed comment 5(b)-4 would provide a non-exhaustive list of unreasonable methods of determining basic living expenses. The first example is a method that assumes that a consumer needs no or implausibly low amounts of funds to meet basic living expenses during the applicable period and that, accordingly, substantially all of a consumer's net income that is not required for payments for major financial obligations is available for loan payments. The second example is a method of setting minimum percentages of income or dollar amounts that, when used in ability-to-repay determinations for covered short-term loans, have yielded high rates of default and reborrowing, in absolute terms or relative to rates of default and reborrowing of other lenders making covered short-term loans to similarly situated consumers.

The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed requirements for estimating basic living expenses, including the methods identified as reasonable or unreasonable, whether additional methods should be specified, or whether the Bureau should provide either a more prescriptive method for estimating basic living expenses or a safe harbor methodology (and, if so, what that methodology should be). The Bureau also solicits comment on whether lenders should be required to ask consumers to identify, on a written questionnaire that lists common types of basic living expenses, how much they typically spend on each type of expense. The Bureau further solicits comment on whether and how lenders should be required to verify the completeness and correctness of the amounts the consumer lists and how a lender should be required to determine how much of the identified or verified expenditures is necessary or, under the alternative approach to defining basic living expenses discussed above, is recurring and not realistically reducible during the term of the prospective loan.

5(b)(2)

Proposed § 1041.5(b)(2) would set forth the Bureau's specific proposed methodology for making a reasonable determination of a consumer's ability to pay a covered short-term loan. Specifically, it would provide that a lender's determination of a consumer's ability to repay is reasonable only if, based on projections in accordance with proposed § 1041.5(c), the lender reasonably makes the applicable determinations provided in proposed §§ 1041.5(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii). Proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i) would require an assessment of the sufficiency of the consumer's residual income during the term of the loan, and proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(ii) would require assessment of an additional period in light of the special harms associated with loans with short-term structures. Proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(iii) would require compliance with additional requirements in proposed § 1041.6 in situations in which the consumer's borrowing history suggests that he or she may have difficulty repaying additional credit.

5(b)(2)(i)

Proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i) would provide that for any covered short-term loan subject to the ability-to-repay requirement of proposed § 1041.5, a lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make all payments under the covered short-term loan and to meet basic living expenses during the term of covered short-term loan. As defined in proposed § 1041.5(a)(6), residual income is the amount of a consumer's net income during a period that is not already committed to payments under major financial obligations during the period. If the payments for a covered short-term loan would consume so much of a consumer's residual income that the consumer would be unable to meet basic living expenses, then the consumer would likely suffer injury from default or reborrowing, or suffer collateral harms from unaffordable payments.

In proposing § 1041.5(b)(2)(i) the Bureau recognizes that, even when lenders determine at the time of consummation that consumers will have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan, some consumers may still face difficulty making payments under covered short-term loans because of changes that occur after consummation. For example, some consumers would experience unforeseen decreases in income or increases in expenses that would leave them unable to repay their loans. Thus, the fact that a consumer ended up in default is not, in and of itself, evidence that the lender failed to make a reasonable assessment of the consumer's ability to repay ex ante. Rather, proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i) looks to the facts as reasonably knowable prior to consummation and would mean that a lender is prohibited from making a covered short-term loan subject to proposed § 1041.5 if there is not a reasonable basis at consummation for concluding that the consumer will be able to make payments under the covered loan while also meeting the consumer's major financial obligations and meeting basic living expenses.

While some consumers may have so little (or no) residual income as to be unable to afford any loan, for other consumers the ability to repay will depend on the amount and timing of the required repayments. Thus, even if a lender concludes that there is not a reasonable basis for believing that a consumer can pay a particular prospective loan, proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i) would not prevent a lender from making a different covered loan with more affordable payments to such a consumer, provided that the more affordable payments would not consume so much of a consumer's residual income that the consumer would be unable to meet basic living expenses and provided further that the alternative loan is consistent with applicable State law.

Applicable Period for Residual Income

As discussed above, under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i) a lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make all payments under the covered short-term loan and to meet basic living expenses during the term of the covered short-term loan. To provide greater certainty, facilitate compliance, and reduce burden, the Bureau is proposing a comment to explain how lenders could comply with proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i).

Proposed comment 5(b)(2)(i)-1 would provide that a lender complies with the requirement in § 1041.5(b)(2)(i) if it reasonably determines that the consumer's projected residual income during the shorter of the term of the loan or the period ending 45 days after consummation of the loan will be greater than the sum of all payments under the covered short-term loan plus an amount the lender reasonably estimates will be needed for basic living expenses during the term of the covered short-term loan. The method of compliance would allow the lender to make one determination based on the sum of all payments that would be due during the term of the covered short-term loan, rather than having to make a separate determination for each respective payment and payment period in isolation, in cases where the short-term loan provide for multiple payments. However, the lender would have to make the determination for the actual term of the loan, accounting for residual income (i.e., net income minus payments for major financial obligations) that would actually accrue during the shorter of the term of the loan or the period ending 45 days after consummation of the loan.

The Bureau believes that for a covered loan with short duration, a lender should make the determination based on net income the consumer will actually receive during the term of the loan and payments for major financial obligations that will actually be payable during the term of the covered short-term loan, rather than, for example, based on a monthly period that may or may not coincide with the loan term. When a covered loan period is under 45 days, determining whether the consumer's residual income will be sufficient to make all payments and meet basic living expenses depends a great deal on, for example, how many paychecks the consumer will actually receive during the term of the loan and whether the consumer will also have to make no rent payment, one rent payment, or two rent payments during the term of the loan.

The Bureau is proposing to clarify that the determination must be based on residual income “during the shorter of the term of the loan or the period ending 45 days after consummation of the loan” because the definition of a covered short-term loan includes a loan under which the consumer is required to repay “substantially” the entire amount of the loan within 45 days of consummation. The clarification would ensure that, if an unsubstantial amount were due after 45 days following consummation, the lender could not rely on residual income projected to accrue after the forty-fifth day to determine that the consumer would have sufficient residual income as required under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i). Proposed comment 5(b)(2)(i)-1.i includes an example applying the method of compliance to a covered short-term loan payable in one payment 16 days after the lender makes the covered short-term loan.

The Bureau invites comment on its proposed applicable time period for assessing residual income.

Sufficiency of Residual Income

As discussed above, under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i) a lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make all payments under the covered short-term loan and to meet basic living expenses during the shorter of the term of the loan or the period ending 45 days after consummation of the loan. Proposed comment 5(b)(2)(i)-2 would clarify what constitutes “sufficient” residual income for a covered short-term loan. For a covered short-term loans, comment 5(b)(2)(i)-2.i would provide that residual income is sufficient so long as it is greater than the sum of payments that would be due under the covered loan plus an amount the lender reasonably estimates will be needed for basic living expenses.

5(b)(2)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(ii) would provide that for a covered short-term loan subject to the ability-to-repay requirement of proposed § 1041.5, a lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer will be able to make payments required for major financial obligations as they fall due, to make any remaining payments under the covered short-term loan, and to meet basic living expenses for 30 days after having made the highest payment under the covered short-term loan on its due date. Proposed comment 5(b)(2)(ii)-1 notes that a lender must include in its determination under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(ii) the amount and timing of net income that it projects the consumer will receive during the 30-day period following the highest payment, in accordance with proposed § 1041.5(c). Proposed comment 5(b)(2)(ii)-1 also includes an example of a covered short-term loan for which a lender could not make a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(ii).

The Bureau proposes to include the requirement in § 1041.5(b)(2)(ii) for covered short-term loans because the Bureau's research has found that these loan structures are particularly likely to result in reborrowing shortly after the consumer repays an earlier loan. As discussed above in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, when a covered loan's terms provide for it to be substantially repaid within 45 days following consummation the fact that the consumer must repay so much within such a short period of time makes it especially likely that the consumer will be left with insufficient funds to make subsequent payments under major financial obligations and to meet basic living expenses. The consumer may then end up falling behind on payments under major financial obligations, being unable to meet basic living expenses, or borrowing additional consumer credit. Such consumers may be particularly likely to borrow new consumer credit in the form of a new covered loan.

This shortfall in a consumer's funds is most likely to occur following the highest payment under the covered short-term loan (which is typically but not necessarily the final payment) and before the consumer's subsequent receipt of significant income. However, depending on regularity of a consumer's income payments and payment amounts, the point within a consumer's monthly expense cycle when the problematic covered short-term loan payment falls due, and the distribution of a consumer's expenses through the month, the resulting shortfall may not manifest until a consumer has attempted to meet all expenses in the consumer's monthly expense cycle, or even longer. Indeed, many payday loan borrowers who repay a first loan and do not reborrow during the ensuing pay cycle (i.e., within 14 days) nonetheless do find it necessary to reborrow before the end of the expense cycle (i.e., within 30 days).

In the Small Business Review Panel Outline, the Bureau described a proposal to require lenders to determine that a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan without needing to reborrow for 60 days, consistent with the proposal in the same document to treat a loan taken within 60 days of having a prior covered short-term loan outstanding as part of the same sequence. Several consumer advocates have argued that consumers may be able to juggle expenses and financial obligations for a time, so that an unaffordable loan may not result in reborrowing until after a 30-day period. For the reasons discussed further below in the section-by-section analyses of § 1041.6, the Bureau is now proposing a 30-day period for both purposes.

The Bureau believes that the incidence of reborrowing caused by such loan structures would be somewhat ameliorated simply by determining that a consumer will have residual income during the term of the loan that exceeds the sum of covered loan payments plus an amount necessary to meet basic living expenses during that period. But if the loan payments consume all of a consumer's residual income during the period beyond the amount needed to meet basic living expenses during the period, then the consumer will be left with insufficient funds to make payments under major financial obligations and meet basic living expenses after the end of that period, unless the consumer receives sufficient net income shortly after the end of that period and before the next set of expenses fall due. Often, though, the opposite is true: A lender schedules the due dates of loan payments under covered short-term loans so that the loan payment due date coincides with dates of the consumer's receipts of income. This practice maximizes the probability that the lender will timely receive the payment under the covered short-term loan, but it also means the term of the loan (as well as the relevant period for the lender's determination that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i)) ends on the date of the consumer's receipt of income, with the result that the time between the end of the loan term and the consumer's subsequent receipt of income is maximized.

Thus, even if a lender made a reasonable determination under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(i) that the consumer would have sufficient residual income during the loan term to make loan payments under the covered short-term loan and meet basic living expenses during the period, there would remain a significant risk that, as a result of an unaffordable highest payment (which may be the only payment, or the last of equal payments), the consumer would be forced to reborrow or suffer collateral harms from unaffordable payments. The example included in proposed comment 5(b)(2)(ii)-1 illustrates just such a result.

The Bureau invites comment on the necessity of the requirement in proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(ii) to prevent consumer harms and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing burden for lenders. The Bureau also invites comment on whether the 30-day period in proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(ii) is the appropriate period of time to use or whether a shorter or longer period of time, such as the 60-day period described in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, would be appropriate. The Bureau also invites comment on whether the time period chosen should run from the date of the final payment, rather than the highest payment, in cases where the highest payment is other than the final payment.

5(b)(2)(iii)

Proposed § 1041.5(b)(2)(iii) would provide that for a covered short-term loan for which a presumption of unaffordability applies under proposed § 1041.6, the lender determine that the requirements of proposed § 1041.6 are satisfied. As discussed below, proposed § 1041.6 would apply certain presumptions, requirements, and prohibitions when the consumer's borrowing history indicates that he or she may have particular difficulty in repaying a new covered loan with certain payment amounts or structures.

5(c) Projecting Consumer Net Income and Payments for Major Financial Obligations

Proposed § 1041.5(c) provides requirements that would apply to a lender's projections of net income and major financial obligations, which in turn serve as the basis for the lender's reasonable determination of ability to repay. Specifically, it would establish requirements for obtaining information directly from a consumer as well as specified types of verification evidence. It would also provide requirements for reconciling ambiguities and inconsistencies in the information and verification evidence.

5(c)(1) General

As discussed above, proposed § 1041.5(b)(2) would provide that a lender's determination of a consumer's ability to repay is reasonable only if the lender determines that the consumer will have sufficient residual income during the term of the loan and for a period thereafter to repay the loan and still meet basic living expenses. Proposed § 1041.5(b)(2) thus carries with it the requirement for a lender to make projections with respect to the consumer's net income and major financial obligations—the components of residual income—during the relevant period of time. And, proposed § 1041.5(b)(2) further provides that to be reasonable such projections must be made in accordance with proposed § 1041.5(c).

Proposed § 1041.5(c)(1) would provide that for a lender's projection of the amount and timing of net income or payments for major financial obligations to be reasonable, the lender must obtain both a written statement from the consumer as provided for in proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(i), and verification evidence as provided for in proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii), each of which are discussed below. Proposed § 1041.5(c)(1) further provides that for a lender's projection of the amount and timing of net income or payments for major financial obligations to be reasonable it may be based on a consumer's statement of the amount and timing only to the extent the stated amounts and timing are consistent with the verification evidence.

The Bureau believes verification of consumers' net income and payments for major financial obligations is an important component of the reasonable ability-to-repay determination. Consumers seeking a loan may be in financial distress and inclined to overestimate net income or to underestimate payments under major financial obligations to improve their chances of being approved. Lenders have an incentive to encourage such misestimates to the extent that as a result consumers find it necessary to reborrow. This result is especially likely if a consumer perceives that, for any given loan amount, lenders offer only one-size-fits-all loan repayment structure and will not offer an alternative loan with payments that are within the consumer's ability to repay. An ability-to-repay determination that is based on unrealistic factual assumptions will yield unrealistic and unreliable results, leading to the consumer harms that the Bureau's proposal is intended to prevent.

Accordingly, proposed § 1041.5(c)(1) would permit a lender to base its projection of the amount and timing of a consumer's net income or payments under major financial obligations on a consumer's written statement of amounts and timing under proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(i) only to the extent the stated amounts and timing are consistent with verification evidence of the type specified in proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii). Proposed § 1041.5(c)(1) would further provide that in determining whether and the extent to which such stated amounts and timing are consistent with verification evidence, a lender may reasonably consider other reliable evidence the lender obtains from or about the consumer, including any explanations the lender obtains from the consumer. The Bureau believes the proposed approach would appropriately ensure that the projections of a consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations will generally be supported by objective, third-party documentation or other records.

However, the proposed approach also recognizes that reasonably available verification evidence may sometimes contain ambiguous, out-of-date, or missing information. For example, the net income of consumers who seek covered loans may vary over time, such as for a consumer who is paid an hourly wage and whose work hours vary from week to week. In fact, a consumer is more likely to experience financial distress, which may be a consumer's reason for seeking a covered loan, immediately following a temporary decrease in net income from their more typical levels. Accordingly, the proposed approach would not require a lender to base its projections exclusively on the consumer's most recent net income receipt shown in the verification evidence. Instead, it allows the lender reasonable flexibility in the inferences the lender draws about, for example, a consumer's net income during the term of the covered loan, based on the consumer's net income payments shown in the verification evidence, including net income for periods earlier than the most recent net income receipt. At the same time, the proposed approach would not allow a lender to mechanically assume that a consumer's immediate past income as shown in the verification evidence will continue into the future if, for example, the lender has reason to believe that the consumer has been laid off or is no longer employed.

In this regard, the proposed approach recognizes that a consumer's own statements, explanations, and other evidence are important components of a reliable projection of future net income and payments for major financial obligations. Proposed comment 5(c)(1)-1 includes several examples applying the proposed provisions to various scenarios, illustrating reliance on consumer statements to the extent they are consistent with verification evidence and how a lender may reasonably consider consumer explanations to resolve ambiguities in the verification evidence. It includes examples of when a major financial obligation in a consumer report is greater than the amount stated by the consumer and of when a major financial obligation stated by the consumer does not appear in the consumer report at all.

The Bureau anticipates that lenders would develop policies and procedures, in accordance with proposed § 1041.18, for how they project consumer net income and payments for major financial obligations in compliance with proposed § 1041.5(c)(1) and that a lender's policies and procedures would reflect its business model and practices, including the particular methods it uses to obtain consumer statements and verification evidence. The Bureau believes that many lenders and vendors would develop methods of automating projections, so that for a typical consumer, relatively little labor would be required.

The Bureau invites comments on the proposed approach to verification and to making projections based upon verified evidence, including whether the Bureau should permit projections that vary from the most recent verification evidence and, if so, whether the Bureau should be more prescriptive with respect to the permissible range of such variances.

5(c)(2) Changes Not Supported by Verification Evidence

Proposed § 1041.5(c)(2) would provide an exception to the requirement in proposed § 1041.5(c)(1) that projections must be consistent with the verification evidence that a lender would be required to obtain under proposed 1041.5(c)(3)(ii). As discussed below, the required verification evidence will normally consist of third-party documentation or other reliable records of recent transactions or of payment amounts. Proposed § 1041.5(c)(2) would permit a lender to project a net income amount that is higher than an amount that would otherwise be supported under proposed § 1041.5(c)(1), or a payment amount under a major financial obligation that is lower than an amount that would otherwise be supported under proposed § 1041.5(c)(1), only to the extent and for such portion of the term of the loan that the lender obtains a written statement from the payer of the income or the payee of the consumer's major financial obligation of the amount and timing of the new or changed net income or payment.

The exception would accommodate situations in which a consumer's net income or payment for a major financial obligation will differ from the amount supportable by the verification evidence. For example, a consumer who has been unemployed for an extended period of time but who just accepted a new job may not be able to provide the type of verification evidence of net income generally required under proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(A). Proposed § 1041.5(c)(2) would permit a lender to project a net income amount based on, for example, an offer letter from the new employer stating the consumer's wage, work hours per week, and frequency of pay. The lender would be required to retain the statement in accordance with proposed § 1041.18.

The Bureau invites comments as to whether lenders should be permitted to rely on such evidence in projecting residual income.

5(c)(3) Evidence of Net Income and Payments for Major Financial Obligations

5(c)(3)(i) Consumer Statements

Proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(i) would require a lender to obtain a consumer's written statement of the amount and timing of the consumer's net income, as well as of the amount and timing of payments required for categories of the consumer's major financial obligations (e.g., credit card payments, automobile loan payments, housing expense payments, child support payments, etc.). The lender would then use the statements as an input in projecting the consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations during the term of the loan. The lender would also be required to retain the statements in accordance with proposed § 1041.18. As discussed above, the Bureau believes it is important to require lenders to obtain this information directly from consumers in addition to obtaining reasonably available verification evidence under proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii) because the latter sources of information may sometimes contain ambiguous, out-of-date, or missing information. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that projections based on both sources of information will be more reliable than either one standing alone.

Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(i)-1 clarifies that a consumer's written statement includes a statement the consumer writes on a paper application or enters into an electronic record, or an oral consumer statement that the lender records and retains or memorializes in writing and retains. It further clarifies that a lender complies with a requirement to obtain the consumer's statement by obtaining information sufficient for the lender to project the dates on which a payment will be received or paid through the period required under proposed § 1041.5(b)(2). Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(i)-1 includes the example that a lender's receipt of a consumer's statement that the consumer is required to pay rent every month on the first day of the month is sufficient for the lender to project when the consumer's rent payments are due. Proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(i) would not specify any particular form or even particular questions or particular words that a lender must use to obtain the required consumer statements.

The Bureau invites comments on whether to require a lender to obtain a written statement from the consumer with respect to the consumer's income and major financial obligations, including whether the Bureau should establish any procedural requirements with respect to securing such a statement and the weight that should be given to such a statement. The Bureau also invites comments on whether a written memorialization by the lender of a consumer's oral statement should not be considered sufficient.

5(c)(3)(ii) Verification Evidence

Proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii) would require a lender to obtain verification evidence for the amounts and timing of the consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations for a period of time prior to consummation. It would specify the type of verification evidence required for net income and each component of major financial obligations. The proposed requirements are intended to provide reasonable assurance that the lender's projections of a consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations are based on accurate and objective information, while also allowing lenders to adopt innovative, automated, and less burdensome methods of compliance.

5(c)(3)(ii)(A)

Proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(A) would specify that for a consumer's net income, the applicable verification evidence would be a reliable record (or records) of an income payment (or payments) covering sufficient history to support the lender's projection under proposed § 1041.5(c)(1). It would not specify a minimum look-back period or number of net income payments for which the lender must obtain verification evidence. The Bureau does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to require verification evidence covering a lookback period of a prescribed length. Rather, sufficiency of the history for which a lender obtains verification evidence may depend upon the source or type of income, the length of the prospective covered longer-term loan, and the consistency of the income shown in the verification evidence the lender initially obtains, if applicable. Lenders would be required to develop and maintain policies and procedures for establishing the sufficient history of net income payments in verification evidence, in accordance with proposed § 1041.18.

Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(ii)(A)-1 would clarify that a reliable transaction record includes a facially genuine original, photocopy, or image of a document produced by or on behalf of the payer of income, or an electronic or paper compilation of data included in such a document, stating the amount and date of the income paid to the consumer. It would further clarify that a reliable transaction record also includes a facially genuine original, photocopy, or image of an electronic or paper record of depository account transactions, prepaid account transactions (including transactions on a general purpose reloadable prepaid card account, a payroll card account, or a government benefits card account), or money services business check-cashing transactions showing the amount and date of a consumer's receipt of income.

The Bureau believes that the proposed requirement would be sufficiently flexible to provide lenders with multiple options for obtaining verification evidence for a consumer's net income. For example, a paper paystub would generally satisfy the requirement, as would a photograph of the paystub uploaded from a mobile phone to an online lender. In addition, the requirement would also be satisfied by use of a commercial service that collects payroll data from employers and provides it to creditors for purposes of verifying a consumer's employment and income. Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(ii)(A)-1 would also allow verification evidence in the form of electronic or paper bank account statements or records showing deposits into the account, as well as electronic or paper records of deposits onto a prepaid card or of check-cashing transactions. Data derived from such sources, such as from account data aggregator services that obtain and categorize consumer deposit account and other account transaction data, would also generally satisfy the requirement. During outreach, service providers informed the Bureau that they currently provide such services to lenders.

Several SERs expressed concern during the SBREFA process that the Bureau's approach to income verification described in the Small Business Review Panel Outline was too burdensome and inflexible. Several other lender representatives expressed similar concerns during the Bureau's outreach to industry. Many perceived that the Bureau would require outmoded or burdensome methods of obtaining verification evidence, such as always requiring a consumer to submit a paper paystub or transmit it by facsimile (fax) to a lender. Others expressed concern about the Bureau requiring income verification at all, stating that many consumers are paid in cash and therefore have no employer-generated records of income.

The Bureau's proposed approach is intended to respond to many of these concerns by providing for a wide range of methods for obtaining verification evidence for a consumer's net income, including electronic methods that can be securely automated through third-party vendors with a consumer's consent. In developing this proposal, Bureau staff met with more than 30 lenders, nearly all of which stated they already use some method—though not necessarily the precise methods the Bureau is proposing—to verify consumers' income as a condition of making a covered loan. The Bureau's proposed approach thus would accommodate most of the methods they described and that the Bureau is aware of from other research and outreach. It is also intended to provide some accommodation for making covered loans to many consumers who are paid in cash. For example, under the Bureau's proposed approach, a lender may be able to obtain verification evidence of net income for a consumer who is paid in cash by using deposit account records (or data derived from deposit account transactions), if the consumer deposits income payments into a deposit account. Lenders often require consumers to have deposit accounts as a condition of obtaining a covered loan, so the Bureau believes that lenders would be able to obtain verification evidence for many consumers who are paid in cash in this manner.

The Bureau recognizes that there are some consumers who receive a portion of their income in cash and also do not deposit their cash income into a deposit account or prepaid card account. For such consumers, a lender may not be able to obtain verification evidence for that portion of a consumer's net income, and therefore generally could not base its projections and ability-to-repay determinations on that portion of such consumers' income. The Bureau, however, does not believe it is appropriate to make an ability-to-repay determination for a covered loan based on income that cannot be reasonably substantiated through any verification evidence. When there is no verification evidence for a consumer's net income, the Bureau believes the risk is too great that projections of net income would be overstated and that payments under a covered short-term loan consequently would exceed the consumer's ability to repay, resulting in the harms targeted by this proposal.

For similar reasons, the Bureau is not proposing to permit the use of predictive models designed to estimate a consumer's income or to validate the reasonableness of a consumer's statement of her income. Given the risks associated with unaffordable short-term loans, the Bureau believes that such models—which the Bureau believes typically are used to estimate annual income—lack the precision required to reasonably project an individual consumer's net income for a short period of time.

The Bureau notes that it has received recommendations from the Small Dollar Roundtable, comprised of a number of lenders making loans the Bureau proposes to cover in this rulemaking and a number of consumer advocates, recommending that the Bureau require income verification.

The Bureau invites comment on the types of verification evidence permitted by the proposed rule and what, if any, other types of verification evidence should be permitted, especially types of verification evidence that would be at least as objective and reliable as the types provided for in proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(A) and comment 5(c)(3)(ii)(A)-1. For example, the Bureau is aware of service providers who are seeking to develop methods to verify a consumer's stated income based upon extrinsic data about the consumer or the area in which the consumer lives. The Bureau invites comment on the reliability of such methods, their ability to provide information that is sufficiently current and granular to address a consumer's stated income for a particular and short period of time, and, if they are able to do so, whether income amounts determined under such methods should be a permissible as a form of verification evidence. The Bureau also invites comments on whether the requirements for verification evidence should be relaxed for a consumer whose principal income is documented but who reports some amount of supplemental cash income and, if so, what approach would be appropriate to guard against the risk of consumers' overstating their income and obtaining an unaffordable loan.

5(c)(3)(ii)(B)

Proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(B) would specify that for a consumer's required payments under debt obligations, the applicable verification evidence would be a national consumer report, the records of the lender and its affiliates, and a consumer report obtained from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or § 1041.17(d)(2), if available. The Bureau believes that most typical consumer debt obligations other than covered loans would appear in a national consumer report. Many covered loans are not included in reports generated by the national consumer reporting agencies, so the lender would also be required to obtain, as verification evidence, a consumer report from a currently registered information system. As discussed above, proposed § 1041.5(c)(1) would permit a lender to base its projections on consumer statements of amounts and timing of payments for major financial obligations (including debt obligations) only to the extent the statements are consistent with the verification evidence. Proposed comment 5(c)(1)-1 includes examples applying that proposed requirement in scenarios when a major financial obligation shown in the verification evidence is greater than the amount stated by the consumer and of when a major financial obligation stated by the consumer does not appear in the verification evidence at all.

Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(ii)(B)-1 would clarify that the amount and timing of a payment required under a debt obligation are the amount the consumer must pay and the time by which the consumer must pay it to avoid delinquency under the debt obligation in the absence of any affirmative act by the consumer to extend, delay, or restructure the repayment schedule. The Bureau anticipates that in some cases, the national consumer report the lender obtains will not include a particular debt obligation stated by the consumer, or that the national consumer report may include, for example, the payment amount under the debt obligation but not the timing of the payment. Similar anomalies could occur with covered loans and a consumer report obtained from a registered information system. To the extent the national consumer report and consumer report from a registered information system omit information for a payment under a debt obligation stated by the consumer, the lender would simply base its projections on the amount and timing stated by the consumer.

The Bureau notes that proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(B) does not require a lender to obtain a credit report unless the lender is otherwise prepared to make a loan to a particular consumer, Because obtaining a credit report will add some cost, the Bureau expects that lenders will order such reports only after determining that the consumer otherwise satisfies the ability-to-repay test so as to avoid incurring these costs for applicants who would be declined without regard to the contents of the credit report. For the reasons previously discussed, the Bureau believes that verification evidence is critical to ensuring that consumers in fact have the ability to repay a loan, and that therefore the costs are justified to achieve the objectives of the proposal.

The Bureau invites comment on whether to require lenders to obtain credit reports from a national credit reporting agency and from a registered information system. In particular, and in accordance with the recommendation of the Small Business Review Panel, the Bureau invites comments on ways of reducing the operational burden for small businesses of verifying consumers' payments under major financial obligations.

5(c)(3)(ii)(C)

Proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(C) would specify that for a consumer's required payments under court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations, the applicable verification evidence would be a national consumer report, which also serves as verification evidence for a consumer's required payments under debt obligations, in accordance with proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(B). The Bureau anticipates that some required payments under court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations will not appear in a national consumer report. To the extent the national consumer report omits information for a required payment, the lender could simply base its projections on the amount and timing stated by the consumer, if any. The Bureau intends this clarification to address concerns from some lenders, including from SERs, that a requirement to obtain verification evidence for payments under court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations from sources other than a national consumer report would be onerous and create great uncertainty.

5(c)(3)(ii)(D)

Proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(D) would specify that for a consumer's housing expense (other than a payment for a debt obligation that appears on a national consumer report obtained by the lender), the applicable verification evidence would be either a reliable transaction record (or records) of recent housing expense payments or a lease, or an amount determined under a reliable method of estimating a consumer's housing expense based on the housing expenses of consumers with households in the locality of the consumer.

Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1 explains that the proposed provision means a lender would have three methods that it could choose from for complying with the requirement to obtain verification evidence for a consumer's housing expense. Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1.i explains that under the first method, which could be used for a consumer whose housing expense is a mortgage payment, the lender may obtain a national consumer report that includes the mortgage payment. A lender would be required to obtain a national consumer report as verification evidence of a consumer's payments under debt obligations generally, pursuant to proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(B). A lender's compliance with that requirement would satisfy the requirement in proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(D), provided the consumer's housing expense is a mortgage payment and that mortgage payment appears in the national consumer report the lender obtains.

Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1.ii explains that the second method is for the lender to obtain a reliable transaction record (or records) of recent housing expense payments or a rental or lease agreement. It clarifies that for purposes of this method, reliable transaction records include a facially genuine original, photocopy or image of a receipt, cancelled check, or money order, or an electronic or paper record of depository account transactions or prepaid account transactions (including transactions on a general purpose reloadable prepaid card account, a payroll card account, or a government benefits card account), from which the lender can reasonably determine that a payment was for housing expense as well as the date and amount paid by the consumer. This method mirrors options a lender would have for obtaining verification evidence for net income. Accordingly, data derived from a record of depository account transactions or of prepaid account transactions, such as data from account data aggregator services that obtain and categorize consumer deposit account and other account transaction data, would also generally satisfy the requirement. Bureau staff have met with service providers that state that they currently provide services to lenders and are typically able to identify, for example, how much a particular consumer expends on housing expense as well as other categories of expenses.

Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1.iii explains that the third method is for a lender to use an amount determined under a reliable method of estimating a consumer's share of housing expense based on the individual or household housing expenses of similarly situated consumers with households in the locality of the consumer seeking a covered loan. Proposed comment 5(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1.iii provides, as an example, that a lender may use data from a statistical survey, such as the American Community Survey of the United States Census Bureau, to estimate individual or household housing expense in the locality (e.g., in the same census tract) where the consumer resides. It provides that, alternatively, a lender may estimate individual or household housing expense based on housing expense and other data (e.g., residence location) reported by applicants to the lender, provided that it periodically reviews the reasonableness of the estimates that it relies on using this method by comparing the estimates to statistical survey data or by another method reasonably designed to avoid systematic underestimation of consumers' shares of housing expense. It further explains that a lender may estimate a consumer's share of household expense based on estimated household housing expense by reasonably apportioning the estimated household housing expense by the number of persons sharing housing expense as stated by the consumer, or by another reasonable method.

Several SERs expressed concern during the SBREFA process that the Bureau's approach to housing expense verification described in the Small Business Review Panel Outline was burdensome and impracticable for many consumers and lenders. Several lender representatives expressed similar concerns during the Bureau's outreach to industry. The Small Business Review Panel Outline referred to lender verification of a consumer's rent or mortgage payment using, for example, receipts, cancelled checks, a copy of a lease, and bank account records. But some SERs and other lender representatives stated many consumers would not have these types of documents readily available. Few consumers receive receipts or cancelled checks for rent or mortgage payments, they stated, and bank account statements may simply state the check number used to make a payment, providing no way of confirming the purpose or nature of the payment. Consumers with a lease would not typically have a copy of the lease with them when applying for a covered loan, they stated, and subsequently locating and transmitting or delivering a copy of the lease to a lender would be unduly burdensome, if not impracticable, for both consumers and lenders.

The Bureau believes that many consumers would have paper or electronic records that they could provide to a lender to establish their housing expense. In addition, as discussed above, information presented to the Bureau during outreach suggests that data aggregator services may be able to electronically and securely obtain and categorize, with a consumer's consent, the consumer's deposit account or other account transaction data to reliably identify housing expenses payments and other categories of expenses.

Nonetheless, the Bureau intends its proposal to be responsive to these concerns by providing lenders with multiple options for obtaining verification evidence for a consumer's housing expense, including by using estimates based on the housing expenses of similarly situated consumers with households in the locality of the consumer seeking a covered loans. The Bureau's proposal also is intended to facilitate automation of the methods of obtaining the verification evidence, making projections of a consumer's housing expense, and calculating the amounts for an ability-to-repay determination, such as residual income.

A related concern raised by SERs is that a consumer may be the person legally obligated to make a rent or mortgage payment but may receive contributions toward it from other household members, so that the payment the consumer makes, even if the consumer can produce a record of it, is much greater than the consumer's own housing expense. Similarly, a consumer may make payments in cash to another person, who then makes the payment to a landlord or mortgage servicer covering the housing expenses of several residents. During outreach with industry, one lender stated that many of its consumers would find requests for documentation of housing expense to be especially intrusive or offensive, especially consumers with informal arrangements to pay rent for a room in someone else's home.

To address these concerns, the Bureau is proposing the option of estimating a consumer's housing expense based on the individual or apportioned household housing expenses of similarly situated consumers with households in the locality. The Bureau believes the proposed approach would address the concerns raised by SERs and other lenders while also reasonably accounting for the portion of a consumer's net income that is consumed by housing expenses and, therefore, not available for payments under a prospective loan. The Bureau notes that if the method the lender uses to obtain verification evidence of housing expense for a consumer—including the estimated method—indicates a higher housing expense amount than the amount in the consumer's statement under proposed § 1041.5(c)(3)(i), then proposed § 1041.5(c)(1) would generally require a lender to rely on the higher amount indicated by the verification evidence. Accordingly, a lender may prefer use one of the other two methods for obtaining verification evidence, especially if doing so would result in verification evidence indicating a housing expense equal to that in the consumer's written statement of housing expense.

The Bureau recognizes that in some cases the consumer's actual housing expense may be lower than the estimation methodology would suggest but may not be verifiable through documentation. For example, some consumers may live for a period of time rent-free with a friend or relative. However, the Bureau does not believe it is possible to accommodate such situations without permitting lenders to rely solely on the consumer's statement of housing expenses, and for the reasons previously discussed the Bureau believes that doing so would jeopardize the objectives of the proposal. The Bureau notes that the approach it is proposing is consistent with the recommendation of the Small Dollar Roundtable which recommended that the Bureau permit rent to be verified through a “geographic market-specific . . . valid, reliable proxy.”

The Bureau invites comment on whether the proposed methods of obtaining verification evidence for housing expense are appropriate and adequate.

§ 1041.6 Additional Limitations on Lending—Covered Short-Term Loans

Background

Proposed § 1041.6 would augment the basic ability-to-repay determination required by proposed § 1041.5 in circumstances in which the consumer's recent borrowing history or current difficulty repaying an outstanding loan provides important evidence with respect to the consumer's financial capacity to afford a new covered short-term loan. In these circumstances, proposed § 1041.6 would require the lender to factor this evidence into the ability-to-repay determination and, in certain instances, would prohibit a lender from making a new covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5 to the consumer for 30 days. The Bureau proposes the additional requirements in § 1041.6 for the same basic reason that it proposes § 1041.5: To prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.4, and the consumer injury that results from it. The Bureau believes that these additional requirements may be needed in circumstances in which proposed § 1041.5 alone may not be sufficient to prevent a lender from making a covered short-term loan that the consumer might not have the ability to repay.

Proposed § 1041.6 would generally impose a presumption of unaffordability on continued lending where evidence suggests that the prior loan was not affordable for the consumer such that the consumer may have particular difficulty repaying a new covered short-term loan. Specifically, such a presumption would apply when a consumer seeks a covered short-term loan during the term of a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.5 or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made under proposed § 1041.9 and for 30 days thereafter, or seeks to take out a covered short-term loan when there are indicia that an outstanding loan with the same lender or its affiliate is unaffordable for the consumer. Proposed § 1041.6 would also impose a mandatory cooling-off period prior to a lender making a fourth loan covered short-term loan in a sequence and would prohibit lenders from making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5 during the term of and for 30 days thereafter a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7.

A central component of the preventive requirements in proposed § 1041.6 is the concept of a reborrowing period—a period following the payment date of a prior loan during which a consumer's borrowing of a covered short-term loan is deemed evidence that the consumer is seeking additional credit because the prior loan was unaffordable. When consumers have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan, the loan should not cause consumers to have the need to reborrow shortly after repaying the loan. As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, however, the Bureau believes that the fact that covered short-term loans require repayment so quickly after consummation makes such loans more difficult for consumers to repay the loan consistent with their other major financial obligations and basic living expenses without needing to reborrow. Moreover, most covered short-term loans—including payday loans and short-term vehicle title loans—also require payment in a single lump sum, thus exacerbating the challenge of repaying the loan without needing to reborrow.

For these loans, the Bureau believes that the fact that a consumer returns to take out another covered short-term loan shortly after having a previous covered short-term loan outstanding frequently indicates that the consumer did not have the ability to repay the prior loan and meet the consumer's other major financial obligations and basic living expenses. This also may provide strong evidence that the consumer will not be able to afford a new covered short-term loan. A second covered short-term loan shortly following a prior covered short-term loan may result from a financial shortfall caused by repayment of the prior loan.

Frequently, reborrowing occurs on the same day that a loan is due, either in the form of a rollover (where permitted by State law) or a new loan taken out on the same day that the prior loan was repaid. Some States require a cooling-off period between loans, typically 24 hours, and the Bureau has found that in those States, if consumers take out successive loans, they generally do so at the earliest time that is legally permitted. The Bureau interprets these data to indicate that these consumers could not afford to repay the full amount of the loan when due and still meet their financial obligations and basic living expenses.

Whether a particular loan taken after a consumer has repaid a prior loan (and after the expiration of any mandated cooling-off period) is a reborrowing prompted by unaffordability of the prior payment is less facially evident. The fact that consumers may cite a particular income or expense shock is not dispositive since a prior unaffordable loan may be the reason that the consumer cannot absorb the new change. On balance, the Bureau believes that for new loans taken within a short period of time after a prior loan ceases to be outstanding, the most likely explanation is the unaffordability of the prior loan, i.e., the fact that the size of the payment obligation on the prior loan left these consumers with insufficient income to make it through their monthly expense cycle.

To provide a structured process that accounts for the likelihood that the unaffordability of an existing or prior loan is driving reborrowing and that ensures a rigorous analysis of consumers' individual circumstances, the Bureau believes that the most appropriate approach may be a presumptions framework rather than an open-ended inquiry. The Bureau is thus proposing to delineate a specific reborrowing period—i.e., a period during which a new loan will be presumed to be a reborrowing.

In determining the appropriate length of the reborrowing period, the Bureau considered several time periods. In particular, in addition to the 30-day period being proposed, the Bureau considered periods of 14, 45, 60, or 90 days in length. The Bureau also considered an option that would tie the length of the reborrowing period to the term of the preceding loan. In evaluating the alternative options for defining the reborrowing period (and in turn the loan sequence definition), the Bureau sought to strike a balance between a reborrowing period that would be too short, thereby not capturing substantial numbers of subsequent loans that are in fact the result of the spillover effect of the unaffordability of the prior loan and inadequately preventing consumer injury, and a reborrowing period that would be too long, thereby covering substantial numbers of subsequent loans that are the result of a new need for credit, independent of such effects. This concept of a reborrowing period is intertwined with the definition of loan sequence. Under proposed § 1041.2(a)(12), loan sequence is defined as a series of consecutive or concurrent covered short-term loans in which each of the loans is made while the consumer currently has an outstanding covered short-term loan or within 30 days after the consumer ceased to have a covered short-term loan outstanding.

The Bureau's 2014 Data Point analyzed repeated borrowing on payday loans using a 14-day reborrowing period reflecting a bi-weekly pay cycle, the most common pay cycle for consumers in this market. For the purposes of the 2014 Data Point, a loan was considered part of a sequence if it was made within 14 days of the prior loan. The Bureau adopted this approach in the Bureau's early research in order to obtain a relatively conservative measure of reborrowing activity relative to the most frequent date for the next receipt of income. However, the 14-day definition had certain disadvantages, including the fact that many consumers are paid on a monthly cycle, and a 14-day definition thus does not adequately reflect how different pay cycles can cause slightly different reborrowing patterns.

Upon further consideration of what benchmarks would sufficiently protect consumers from reborrowing harm, the Bureau turned to the typical consumer expense cycle, rather than the typical income cycle, as the most appropriate metric. Consumer expense cycles are typically a month in length with housing expenses, utility payments, and other debt obligations generally paid on a monthly basis. Thus, where repaying a loan causes a shortfall, the consumer may seek to return during the same expense cycle to get funds to cover downstream expenses.

The proposals under consideration in the Small Business Review Panel Outline relied on a 60-day reborrowing period based upon the premise that consumers for whom repayment of a loan was unaffordable may nonetheless be able to juggle their expenses for a period of time so that the spillover effects of the loan may not manifest until the second expense cycle following repayment. Upon additional analysis and extensive feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, the Bureau has now tentatively concluded that the 30-day definition incorporated into the Bureau's proposal may strike a more appropriate balance between competing considerations.

Because so many expenses are paid on a monthly basis, the Bureau believes that loans obtained during the same expense cycle are relatively likely to indicate that repayment of a prior loan may have caused a financial shortfall. Additionally, in analysis of supervisory data, the Bureau has found that a considerable segment of consumers who repay a loan without an immediate rollover or reborrowing nonetheless return within the ensuing 30 days to reborrow. Accordingly, if the consumer returns to take out another covered short-term loan—or, as described with regard to proposed § 1041.10, certain types of covered longer-term loans—within the same 30-day period, the Bureau believes that this pattern of reborrowing indicates that the prior loan was unaffordable and that the following loan may likewise be unaffordable.

On the other hand, the Bureau believes that for loans obtained more than 30 days after a prior loan, there is an increased possibility that the loan is prompted by a new need on the part of the borrower, not directly related to potential financial strain from repaying the prior loan. While a previous loan's unaffordability may cause some consumers to need to take out a new loan as many as 45 days or even 60 days later, the Bureau believes that the effects of the previous loan are more likely to dissipate once the consumer has completed a full expense cycle following the previous loan's conclusion. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that a 45-day or 60-day definition may be too broad. A reborrowing period which varies with the length of the preceding loan term would be operationally complex for lenders to implement and, for consumers paid weekly or bi-weekly, may also be too narrow.

Accordingly, using this 30-day reborrowing window, the Bureau is proposing a presumption of unaffordability in situations in which the Bureau believes that the fact that the consumer is seeking to take out a new covered short-term loan during the term of, or shortly after repaying, a prior loan generally suggests that the new loan, like the prior loan, will exceed the consumer's ability to repay. The presumption is based on concerns that the prior loan may have triggered the need for the new loan because it exceeded the consumer's ability to repay, and that, absent a sufficient improvement of the consumer's financial capacity, the new loan will also be unaffordable for the consumer.

The presumption can be overcome, however, in circumstances that suggest that there is sufficient reason to believe that the consumer would, in fact, be able to afford the new loan even though he or she is seeking to reborrow during the term of or shortly after a prior loan. The Bureau recognizes, for example, that there may be situations in which the prior loan would have been affordable but for some unforeseen disruption in income that occurred during the prior expense cycle and which is not reasonably expected to recur during the term of the new loan. The Bureau also recognizes that there may be circumstances, albeit less common, in which even though the prior loan proved to be unaffordable, a new loan would be affordable because of a reasonably projected increase in net income or decrease in major financial obligations—for example, if the consumer has obtained a second job that will increase the consumer's residual income going forward or the consumer has moved since obtaining the prior loan and will have lower housing expenses going forward.

Proposed § 1041.6(b) through (d) define a set of circumstances in which the Bureau believes that a consumer's recent borrowing history makes it unlikely that the consumer can afford a new covered short-term loan, including concurrent loans. In such circumstances, a consumer would be presumed to not have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5. Proposed § 1041.6(e) would define the additional determinations that a lender would be required to make in cases where the presumption applies in order for the lender's determination under proposed § 1041.5 that the consumer will have the ability to repay a new covered short-term loan to be reasonable despite the unaffordability of the prior loan.

The Bureau believes that it is extremely unlikely that a consumer who twice in succession returned to reborrow during the reborrowing period and who seeks to reborrow again within 30 days of having the third covered short-term loan outstanding would be able to afford another covered short-term loan. Because of lenders' strong incentives to facilitate reborrowing that is beyond the consumer's ability to repay, the Bureau believes it is appropriate, in proposed § 1041.6(f), to impose a mandatory 30-day cooling-off period after the third covered short-term loan in a sequence, during which time the lender cannot make a new covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5 to the consumer. This period would ensure that after three consecutive ability-to-repay determinations have proven inconsistent with the consumer's actual experience, the lender could not further worsen the consumer's financial situation by encouraging the consumer to take on additional unaffordable debt. Additionally, proposed § 1041.6(g) would prohibit a lender from combining sequences of covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.5 with loans made under the conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.7, as discussed further below.

The Bureau notes that this overall proposed approach is fairly similar to the framework included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline. There, the Bureau included a presumption of inability to repay for the second and third covered short-term loan and covered longer-term balloon-payment loan in a loan sequence and a mandatory cooling-off period following the third loan in a sequence. The Bureau considered a “changed circumstances” standard for overcoming the presumption that would have required lenders to obtain and verify evidence of a change in consumer circumstances indicating that the consumer had the ability to repay the new loan according to its terms. The Bureau also, as noted above, included a 60-day reborrowing period (and corresponding definition of loan sequence) in the Small Business Review Panel Outline.

SERs and other stakeholders that offered feedback on the Outline urged the Bureau to provide greater flexibility with regard to using a presumptions framework to address concerns about repeated borrowing despite the contemplated requirement to determine ability to repay. The SERs and other stakeholders also urged the Bureau to provide greater clarity and flexibility in defining the circumstances that would permit a lender to overcome the presumption of unaffordability.

The Small Business Review Panel Report recommended that the Bureau request comment on whether a loan sequence could be defined with reference to a period shorter than the 60 days under consideration during the SBREFA process. The Small Business Review Panel Report further recommended that the Bureau consider additional approaches to regulation, including whether existing State laws and regulations could provide a model for elements of the Bureau's proposed interventions. In this regard, the Bureau notes that some States have cooling-off periods of one to seven days, as well as longer periods that apply after a longer sequence of loans. The Bureau's prior research has examined the effectiveness of these cooling-off periods and, in the CFPB Report on Supplemental Findings, the Bureau is publishing research showing how different definitions of loan sequence affect the number of loan sequences and the number of loans deemed to be part of a sequence. In the CFPB Report on Supplemental Findings, the Bureau is publishing additional analysis on the impacts of State cooling-off periods. The latter analysis is also discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans.

The Bureau has made a number of adjustments to the presumptions framework in response to this feedback. For instance, the Bureau is proposing a 30-day definition of loan sequence and 30-day cooling-off period rather than a 60-day definition of loan sequence and 60-day cooling-off period. The Bureau has also provided greater specificity and flexibility about when a presumption of unaffordability would apply, for example, by proposing certain exceptions to the presumption of unaffordability for a sequence of covered short-term loans. The proposal also would provide somewhat more flexibility about when a presumption of unaffordability could be overcome by permitting lenders to determine that there would be sufficient improvement in financial capacity for the new loan because of a one-time drop in income since obtaining the prior loan (or during the prior 30 days, as applicable). The Bureau has also continued to assess potential alternative approaches to the presumptions framework, discussed below.

The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed presumptions of unaffordability and mandatory cooling-off periods, and other aspects of proposed § 1041.6, including the circumstances in which the presumptions apply (e.g., the appropriate length of the reborrowing period and the appropriateness of other circumstances giving rise to the presumptions), the requirements for overcoming a presumption of unaffordability, and the circumstances in which a lender would be prohibited from making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5 during a 30-day cooling-off period or cooling-off period of a different length. In addition, and consistent with the recommendations of the Small Business Review Panel Report, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the 30-day reborrowing period is appropriate for the presumptions and prohibitions, or whether a longer or shorter period would better address the Bureau's concerns about repeat borrowing. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether lenders should be required to provide disclosures as part of the origination process for covered loans and, if so, whether an associated model form would be appropriate; on the specific elements of such disclosures; and on the burden and benefits to consumers and lenders of providing disclosures as described above.

Alternatives Considered

The Bureau has considered a number of alternative approaches to address reborrowing on covered short-term loans in circumstances indicating the consumer was unable to afford the prior loan. One possible approach would be to limit the overall number of covered short-term loans that a consumer could take within a specified period of time, rather than using the loan sequence and presumption concepts as part of the determination of consumers' ability to repay subsequent loans in a sequence and when and if a mandatory cooling-off period should apply. By imposing limits on reborrowing while avoiding the complexity of the presumptions, this approach could provide a more flexible way to protect consumers whose borrowing patterns suggest that they may not have the ability to repay their loans. This approach could, for example, limit the number of covered short-term loans to three within a 120-day period when the loan has a duration of 15 days or less. For loans with a longer duration, the applicable period of time correspondingly could be longer. However, depending on individual consumers' usage patterns, such an approach could also result in much longer cooling-off periods for individuals who borrow several times early in the designated period. Alternatively, a similar approach could impose a cooling-off period of varying lengths depending on the consumer's time in debt during a specified period.

The Bureau has also considered an alternative approach under which, instead of defining the circumstances in which a formal presumption of unaffordability applies and the determinations that a lender must make when such a presumption applies to a transaction, the Bureau would identify circumstances indicative of a consumer's inability to repay that would be relevant to whether a lender's determination under proposed § 1041.5 is reasonable. This approach would likely involve a number of examples of indicia requiring greater caution in underwriting and examples of countervailing factors that might support the reasonableness of a lender's determination that the consumer could repay a subsequent loan despite the presence of such indicia. This alternative approach would be less prescriptive than the proposed framework, and thus leave more discretion to lenders to make such a determination. However, it would also provide less certainty as to when a lender's particular ability-to-repay determination is reasonable.

In addition, the Bureau has considered whether there is a way to account for unusual expenses within the presumptions framework without creating an exception that would swallow the rule. In particular, the Bureau considered permitting lenders to overcome the presumptions of unaffordability in the event that the consumer provided evidence that the reason the consumer was struggling to repay the outstanding loan or was seeking to reborrow was due to a recent unusual and non-recurring expense. For example, under such an approach, a lender could overcome the presumption of unaffordability by finding that the reason the consumer was seeking a new covered short-term loan was as a result of an emergency car repair or furnace replacement or an unusual medical expense during the term of the prior loan or the reborrowing period, so long as the expense is not reasonably likely to recur during the period of the new loan. The Bureau considered including such circumstances as an additional example of sufficient improvement in financial capacity, as described with regard to proposed § 1041.6(e) below.

While such an addition could provide more flexibility to lenders and to consumers to overcome the presumptions of unaffordability, an unusual and non-recurring expense test would also present several challenges. To effectuate this test, the Bureau would need to define, in ways that lenders could implement, what would be a qualifying “unusual and non-recurring expense,” a means of assessing whether a new loan was attributable to such an expense rather than to the unaffordability of the prior loan, and standards for how such an unusual and non-recurring expense could by documented (e.g., through transaction records). Such a test would have substantial implications for the way in which the ability-to-repay requirements in proposed § 1041.5 (and proposed § 1041.9 for covered longer-term loans) address the standards for basic living expenses and accounting for potential volatility over the term of a loan. Most significantly, the Bureau is concerned that if a lender were permitted to overcome the presumption of unaffordability by finding that the consumer faced an unusual and non-recurring expense during repayment of the prior or outstanding loan, this justification would be invoked in cases in which the earlier loan had, in fact, been unaffordable. As discussed above, the fact that a consumer may cite a particular expense shock when seeking to reborrow does not necessarily mean that a recent prior loan was affordable; if a consumer, in fact, lacked the ability to repay the prior loan, it would be a substantial factor in why the consumer could not absorb the expense. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that it may be difficult to parse out causation and to differentiate between types of expense shocks and the reasonableness of lenders' ability-to-repay determinations where such shocks are asserted to have occurred.

In light of these competing considerations, the Bureau has chosen to propose the approach of supplementing the proposed § 1041.5 determination with formal presumptions. The Bureau is, however, broadly seeking comment on alternative approaches to addressing the issue of repeat borrowing in a more flexible manner, including the alternatives described above and on any other framework for assessing consumers' borrowing history as part of an overall determination of ability to repay. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether to apply a presumption of unaffordability or mandatory cooling-off period based on the total number of loans that a consumer has obtained or the total amount of time in which a consumer has been in debt during a specified period of time. The Bureau also solicits comment on the alternative of defining indicia of unaffordability, as described above. For such alternatives, the Bureau solicits comment on the appropriate time periods and on the manner in which such frameworks would address reborrowing on loans of different lengths. In addition, the Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether to permit lenders to overcome a presumption of unaffordability by finding that the consumer had experienced an unusual and non-recurring expense and, if so, on measures to address the challenges described above.

Legal Authority

As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.4 above, the Bureau believes that it may be an unfair and abusive practice to make a covered short-term loan without determining that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan. Accordingly, in order to prevent that unfair and abusive practice, proposed § 1041.5 would require lenders prior to making a covered short-term loan—other than a loan made under the conditional exemption to the ability-to-repay requirements in proposed § 1041.7—to make a reasonable determination that the consumer has sufficient income after meeting major financial obligations, to make payments under a prospective covered short-term loan and to continue meeting basic living expenses. Proposed § 1041.6 would augment the basic ability-to-repay determination required by proposed § 1041.5 in circumstances in which the consumer's recent borrowing history or current difficulty repaying an outstanding loan provides important evidence with respect to the consumer's financial capacity to afford a new covered short-term loan. The Bureau is proposing § 1041.6 based on the same source of authority that serves as the basis for proposed § 1041.5: The Bureau's authority under section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that the Bureau's rules may include requirements for the purposes of preventing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.

As with proposed § 1041.5, the Bureau proposes the requirements in § 1041.6 to prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.4, and the consumer injury that results from it. The Bureau believes that the additional requirements of proposed § 1041.6 may be needed in circumstances in which proposed § 1041.5 alone may not be sufficient to prevent a lender from making a covered short-term loan that would exacerbate the impact of an initial unaffordable loan. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.6 bear a reasonable relation to preventing the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.4. In addition, as further discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.6(h), the Bureau proposes that provision pursuant to both the Bureau's authority under section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Bureau's authority under section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act to prevent evasions of the purposes and objectives of Federal consumer financial laws, including Bureau rules issued pursuant to rulemaking authority provided by Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act.

6(a) Additional Limitations on Making a Covered Short-Term Loan Under § 1041.5

Proposed § 1041.6(a) would set forth the general additional limitations on making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5. Proposed § 1041.6(a) would provide that when a consumer is presumed not to have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.6(b), (c), or (d), a lender's determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan is not reasonable, unless the lender can overcome the presumption of unaffordability. Proposed § 1041.6(a) would further provide that a lender is prohibited from making a covered short-term loan to a consumer if the mandatory cooling-off periods in proposed § 1041.6(f) or (g) apply. In order to determine whether the presumptions and prohibitions in proposed § 1041.6 apply to a particular transaction, proposed § 1041.6(a)(2) would require a lender to obtain and review information about the consumer's borrowing history from its own records, the records of its affiliates, and a consumer report from an information system currently registered under proposed § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), if one is available.

The Bureau notes that, as drafted, the proposed presumptions and prohibitions in § 1041.6 would apply only to making specific additional covered short-term loans. The Bureau solicits comment on whether a presumption of unaffordability, mandatory cooling-off periods, or other additional limitations on lending also would be appropriate for transactions involving an increase in the credit available under an existing covered loan, making an advance on a line of credit under a covered short-term loan, or other circumstances that may evidence repeated borrowing. If such limitations would be appropriate, the Bureau requests comment on how they should be tailored in light of relevant considerations.

In this regard, the Bureau further notes that the presumptions of unaffordability depend on the definition of outstanding loan in proposed § 1041.2(a)(15) and therefore would not cover circumstances in which the consumer is more than 180 days delinquent on the prior loan. The Bureau solicits comment on whether additional requirements should apply to the ability-to-repay determination for a covered short-term loan in these circumstances; for instance, whether to generally prohibit lenders from making a new covered short-term loan to a consumer for the purposes of satisfying a delinquent obligation on an existing loan with the same lender or its affiliate. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on whether additional requirements should apply to covered short-term loans that are lines of credit; for instance, whether a presumption of unaffordability should apply at the time of the ability-to-repay determination required under § 1041.5(b)(1)(ii) for a consumer to obtain an advance under a line of credit more than 180 days after the date of a prior ability-to-repay determination.

The Bureau also solicits comment on the proposed standard in § 1041.6(a) and on any alternative approaches to the relationship between proposed § 1041.5 and proposed § 1041.6 that would prevent consumer harm while reducing the burden on lenders. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the formal presumption and prohibition approach in § 1041.6 is an appropriate supplement to the § 1041.5 determination.

6(a)(1) General

Proposed § 1041.6(a)(1) would provide that if a presumption of unaffordability applies, a lender's determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan is not reasonable unless the lender makes the additional determination set forth in proposed § 1041.6(e), and discussed in detail below, and the requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.5 are satisfied. Under proposed § 1041.6(e), a lender can make a covered short-term loan notwithstanding the presumption of unaffordability if the lender reasonably determines, based on reliable evidence, that there will be sufficient improvement in the consumer's financial capacity such that the consumer would have the ability to repay the new loan according to its terms despite the unaffordability of the prior loan. Proposed § 1041.6(a)(1) would further provide that a lender must not make a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5 to a consumer during the mandatory cooling-off periods specified in proposed § 1041.6(f) and (g).

Proposed comment 6(a)(1)-1 clarifies that the presumptions and prohibitions would apply to making a covered short-term loan and are triggered, if applicable, at the time of consummation of the new covered short-term loan. Proposed comment 6(a)(1)-2 clarifies that the presumptions and prohibitions would apply to rollovers and renewals of a covered short-term loan when such transactions are permitted under State law. Proposed comment 6(a)(1)-3 clarifies that a lender's determination that a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan is not reasonable within the meaning of proposed § 1041.5 if under proposed § 1041.6 the consumer is presumed to not have the ability to repay the loan and that presumption of unaffordability has not been overcome in the manner set forth in proposed § 1041.6(e). Thus, if proposed § 1041.6 prohibits a lender from making a covered short-term loan, then the lender must not make the loan, regardless of the lender's determination under proposed § 1041.5. Nothing in proposed § 1041.6 would displace the requirements of § 1041.5; on the contrary, the determination under proposed § 1041.6 would be, in effect, an additional component of the proposed § 1041.5 determination of ability to repay in situations in which the basic requirements of proposed § 1041.5 alone would be insufficient to prevent the unfair and abusive practice.

6(a)(2) Borrowing History Review

Proposed § 1041.6(a)(2) would require a lender to obtain and review information about a consumer's borrowing history from the records of the lender and its affiliates, and from a consumer report obtained from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), if available, and to use this information to determine a potential loan's compliance with the requirements of proposed § 1041.6. Proposed comment 6(a)(2)-1 clarifies that a lender satisfies its obligation under § 1041.6(a)(2) to obtain a consumer report obtained from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), if available, when it complies with the requirement in § 1041.5(c)(3)(ii)(B) to obtain this same consumer report. Proposed comment 6(a)(2)-2 clarifies that if no information systems currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2) are currently available, the lender is nonetheless required to obtain information about a consumer's borrowing history from the records of the lender and its affiliates.

Based on outreach to lenders, including feedback from SERs, the Bureau believes that lenders already generally review their own records for information about a consumer's history with the lender prior to making a new loan to the consumer. The Bureau understands that some lenders in the market for covered short-term loans also pull a consumer report from a specialty consumer reporting agency as part of standardized application screening, though practices in this regard vary widely across the market.

As detailed below in the section-by-section analysis of proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17, the Bureau believes that information regarding the consumer's borrowing history is important to facilitate reliable ability-to-repay determinations. If the consumer already has a relationship with a lender or its affiliates, the lender can obtain some historical information regarding borrowing history from its own records. However, without obtaining a report from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), the lender will not know if its existing customers or new customers have obtained covered short-term loans or a prior covered longer-term balloon-payment loan from other lenders, as such information generally is not available in national consumer reports. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.6(a)(2) to require lenders to obtain a report from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), if one is available.

The section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.16 and 1041.17, and part VI below explain the Bureau's attempts to minimize burden in connection with furnishing information to and obtaining a consumer report from an information system currently registered pursuant to proposed § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2). Specifically, the Bureau estimates that each report would cost approximately $0.50. Consistent with the recommendations of the Small Business Review Panel Report, the Bureau requests comment on the cost to small entities of obtaining information about consumer borrowing history and on potential ways to further reduce the operational burden of obtaining this information.

6(b) Presumption of Unaffordability for Sequence of Covered Short-Term Loans Made Under § 1041.5

6(b)(1) Presumption

Proposed § 1041.6(b)(1) would provide that a consumer is presumed not to have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5 during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.5 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter. Proposed comment 6(b)(1)-1 clarifies that a lender cannot make a covered short-term loan under § 1041.5 during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under § 1041.5 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter unless the exception to the presumption applies or the lender can overcome the presumption. A lender would be permitted to overcome the presumption of unaffordability in accordance with proposed § 1041.6(e) for the second and third loan in a sequence, as defined in proposed § 1041.2(a)(12); as noted in proposed comment 6(b)(1)-1, prior to the fourth covered short-term loan in a sequence, proposed § 1041.6(f) would impose a mandatory cooling-off period, as discussed further below.

Proposed § 1041.6(b)(1) would apply to situations in which, notwithstanding a lender's determination prior to consummating an earlier covered short-term loan that the consumer would have the ability to repay the loan according to its terms, the consumer seeks to take out a new covered short-term loan during the term of the prior loan or within 30 days thereafter.

As discussed above in the background to the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.6, the Bureau believes that when a consumer seeks to take out a new covered short-term loan during the term of or within 30 days of having a prior covered short-term loan outstanding, there is substantial reason for concern that the need to reborrow is caused by the unaffordability of the prior loan. The Bureau proposes to use the 30-day reborrowing period discussed above to define the circumstances in which a new loan would be considered a reborrowing. The Bureau believes that even in cases where the determination of ability to repay was reasonable based upon what was known at the time that the prior loan was originated, the fact that the consumer is seeking to reborrow in these circumstances is relevant in assessing whether a new and similar loan—or rollover or renewal of the existing loan—would be affordable for the consumer. For example, the reborrowing may indicate that the consumer's actual basic living expenses exceed what the lender projected for the purposes of § 1041.5 for the prior loan. In short, the Bureau believes that when a consumer seeks to take out a new covered short-term loan that would be part of a loan sequence, there is substantial reason to conduct a particularly careful review to determine whether the consumer can afford to repay the new covered short-term loan.

In addition, the fact that the consumer is seeking to reborrow in these circumstances may indicate that the initial determination of affordability was unreasonable when made. Indeed, the Bureau believes that if, with respect to a particular lender making covered short-term loans pursuant to proposed § 1041.5, a substantial percentage of consumers returned within 30 days to obtain a second loan, that fact would provide evidence that the lender's determinations under proposed § 1041.5 were not reasonable. And this would be even more so the case where a substantial percentage of consumers returned within 30 days of the second loan to obtain a third loan.

Given these considerations, to prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.4, proposed § 1041.6(b) would create a presumption of unaffordability for a covered short-term loan during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under § 1041.5 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter unless the exception in proposed § 1041.6(b)(2) applies. As a result of this presumption, it would not be reasonable for a lender to determine that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new covered short-term loan without taking into account the fact that the consumer did need to reborrow after obtaining a prior loan and making a reasonable determination that the consumer will be able to repay the new covered short-term loan without reborrowing. Proposed § 1041.6(e), discussed below, defines the elements for such a determination.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed presumption to prevent the unfair and abusive practice and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing the burden on lenders. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on alternative approaches to preventing consumer harm from repeat borrowing on covered short-term loans, including other methods of supplementing the basic ability-to-repay determination required for a covered short-term loan shortly following a prior covered short-term loan.

The Bureau also solicits comment on whether there are other circumstances—such as a pattern of heavy usage of covered short-term loans that would not meet the proposed definition of a loan sequence or the overall length of time in which a consumer is in debt on covered short-term loans over a specified period of time—that would also warrant a presumption of unaffordability.

6(b)(2) Exception

Proposed § 1041.6(b)(2) would provide an exception to the presumption in proposed § 1041.6(b)(1) where the subsequent covered short-term loan would meet specific conditions. The conditions under either proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(A) or (B) must be met, along with the condition under proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(ii). First, under proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(A), the consumer must have paid the prior covered short-term loan in full and the amount that would be owed by the consumer for the new covered short-term loan could not exceed 50 percent of the amount that the consumer paid on the prior loan. Second, under proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(B), in the event of a rollover the consumer would not owe more on the new covered short-term loan (i.e., the rollover) than the consumer paid on the prior covered short-term loan (i.e., the outstanding loan that is being rolled over). Third, under proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(ii), the new covered short-term loan would have to be repayable over a period that is at least as long as the period over which the consumer made payment or payments on the prior loan. Proposed comment 6(b)(2)-1 provides general clarification for the proposed provision.

The rationale for the presumption defined in proposed § 1041.6(b)(1) is generally that the consumer's need to reborrow in the specified circumstances evidences the unaffordability of the prior loan and thus warrants a presumption that the new loan will likewise be unaffordable for the consumer.

But when a consumer is seeking to reborrow no more than half of the amount that the consumer has already paid on the prior loan, including situations in which the consumer is seeking to roll over no more than the amount the consumer repays, the Bureau believes that the predicate for the presumption may no longer apply. For example, if a consumer paid off a prior $400, 45-day duration loan and later returns within 30 days to request a new $100, 45-day duration loan, the lender may be able to reasonably infer that such second $100 loan would be affordable for the consumer, even if a second $400 loan would not be. Given that result, assuming that the lender satisfies the requirements of proposed § 1041.5, the lender may be able to reasonably infer that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new loan for $100. Thus, the Bureau believes that an exception to the presumption of unaffordability may be appropriate in this situation.

However, this is not the case when the amount owed on the new loan would be greater than 50 percent of the amount paid on the prior loan, the consumer would roll over an amount greater than he or she repays, or the term of the new loan would be shorter than the term of the prior loan. For example, if the consumer owes $450 on a covered short-term loan, pays only $100 and seeks to roll over the remaining $350, this result would not support an inference that the consumer will have the ability to repay $350 for the new loan. Accordingly, the new loan would be subject to the presumption of unaffordability. Similarly, with the earlier example, the lender could not infer based on the payment of $400 over 45 days that a consumer could afford $200 in one week. Rather, the Bureau believes that it would be appropriate in such circumstances for the lender to go through the process to overcome the presumption in the manner set forth in proposed § 1041.6(e).

On the basis of the preceding considerations, the Bureau is proposing this exception to the presumption in proposed § 1041.6(b). The Bureau's rationale is the same for the circumstances in both proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(A) and (B); as explained below, the formula is slightly modified in order to account for the particular nature of the rollover transaction when permitted under applicable State law (termed a renewal in some States).

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed exception to the presumption of unaffordability and on any other circumstances that would also warrant an exception to the presumption. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on the specific thresholds in proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(A) and (B). In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on the timing requirement in proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(ii) and whether alternative formulations of the timing requirement would be appropriate; for instance, whether an exception should be available if the new covered short-term loan would be repayable over a period that is proportional to the prior payment history.

6(b)(2)(i)(A)

Proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(A) would set out the formula for transactions in which the consumer has paid off the prior loan in full and is then returning for a new covered short-term loan during the reborrowing period. Proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(A) would define paid in full to include the amount financed, charges included in the total cost of credit, and charges excluded from the total cost of credit such as late fees. Proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(A) would further specify that to be eligible for the exception, the consumer would not owe, in connection with the new covered short-term loan, more than 50 percent of the amount that the consumer paid on the prior covered short-term loan (including the amount financed and charges included in the total cost of credit, but excluding any charges excluded from the total cost of credit such as late fees). Proposed comment 6(b)(2)(i)(A)-1 clarifies that a loan is considered paid in full whether or not the consumer's obligations were satisfied timely under the loan contract and also clarifies how late fees are treated for purposes of the exception requirements. Proposed comment 6(b)(2)(i)(A)-2 provides illustrative examples. The Bureau solicits comment on whether a consumer should be eligible for the exception under proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(A) when the prior loan was paid in full but the consumer had previously triggered late fees or otherwise was delinquent on payments for the prior loan, as such history of late payments could be a relevant consideration toward whether the consumer has the ability to repay a similarly-structured loan.

6(b)(2)(i)(B)

Proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(B) would set out the formula for transactions in which the consumer provides partial payment on a covered short-term loan and is seeking to roll over the remaining balance into a new covered short-term loan. Proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(B) would specify that to be eligible for the exception, the consumer would not owe more on the new covered short-term loan than the consumer paid on the prior covered short-term loan that is being rolled over (including the amount financed and charges included in the total cost of credit, but excluding any charges that are excluded from the total cost of credit such as late fees). Proposed comment 6(b)(2)(i)(B)-1 clarifies that rollovers are subject to applicable State law (sometimes called renewals) and cross-references proposed comment 6(a)(1)-2. Proposed comment 6(b)(2)(i)(B)-1 also clarifies that the prior covered short-term loan is the outstanding loan being rolled over, the new covered short-term loan is the rollover, and that for the conditions of § 1041.6(b)(2)(i)(B) to be satisfied, the consumer will repay at least 50 percent of the amount owed on the loan being rolled over. Proposed comment 6(b)(2)(i)(B)-2 provides an illustrative example.

As discussed above with regard to the reborrowing period, the Bureau considers rollovers and other forms of reborrowing within 30 days of the prior loan outstanding to be the same. Given the particular nature of the rollover transaction when permitted by State law, slightly different calculations are needed for the exception to effectuate this equal treatment.

6(b)(2)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(ii) would set forth the condition that the new covered short-term loan be repayable over a period that is at least as long as the period over which the consumer made payment or payments on the prior covered short-term loan. The Bureau believes that both the amount of the new loan and the duration of the new loan relative to the prior loan are important to determining whether there is a risk that the second loan would be unaffordable and thus whether a presumption should be applied. Absent this condition, situations could arise in which the 50 percent condition were satisfied but where the Bureau would still have concern about not applying the presumption. As noted above, from the fact that the consumer paid in full a $450 loan with a term of 45 days, it does not follow that the consumer can afford a $200 loan with a term of one week, even though $200 is less than 50 percent of $450. In that instance, the consumer would owe $200 in only a week, which may be very difficult to repay.

6(c) Presumption of Unaffordability for a Covered Short-Term Loan Following a Covered Longer-Term Balloon-Payment Loan Made Under § 1041.9

Proposed § 1041.6(c) would provide that a consumer is presumed not to have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5 during the time period in which the consumer has a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made under proposed § 1041.9 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter. The presumption in proposed § 1041.6(c) uses the same 30-day reborrowing period used in proposed § 1041.6(b) and discussed in the background to the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.6 to define when there is sufficient risk that the need for the new loan was triggered by the unaffordability of the prior loan and, as a result, warrants a presumption that the new loan would be unaffordable.

The Bureau believes that when a consumer seeks to take out a new covered short-term loan that would be part of a loan sequence, there is substantial reason for concern that the need to reborrow is being triggered by the unaffordability of the prior loan. Similarly, covered longer-term balloon-payment loans, by definition, require a large portion of the loan to be paid at one time. As discussed below in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, the Bureau's research suggests that the fact that a consumer seeks to take out another covered longer-term balloon-payment loan shortly after having a previous covered longer-term balloon-payment loan outstanding will frequently indicate that the consumer did not have the ability to repay the prior loan and meet the consumer's other major financial obligations and basic living expenses. The Bureau found that the approach of the balloon payment coming due is associated with significant reborrowing. However, the need to reborrow caused by an unaffordable covered longer-term balloon is not necessarily limited to taking out a new loan of the same type. If the borrower takes out a new covered short-term loan in such circumstances, it also is a reborrowing. Accordingly, in order to prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.4, the Bureau proposes a presumption of unaffordability for a covered short-term loan that would be concurrent with or shortly following a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan.

Unlike the presumption in § 1041.6(b), the Bureau does not propose an exception to the presumption based on the amount to be repaid on each loan. The rationale for that exception relies on the consumer repaying the new covered short-term loan over a period of time that is at least as long as the time that the consumer repaid the prior covered short-term loan. By definition, a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan has a longer duration than a covered short-term loan, so the circumstances for which the Bureau believes an exception is appropriate in § 1041.6(b)(2) would not be applicable to the transactions governed by proposed § 1041.6(c).

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed presumption to prevent the unfair and abusive practice and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing the burden on lenders. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether proposed § 1041.6(c) and the provisions of proposed § 1041.6 more generally would adequately protect against the potential for lenders to make covered loans of different lengths (e.g., a covered short-term loan immediately followed by a 46-day covered longer-term balloon-payment loan) in order to avoid operation of the presumptions and prohibitions in proposed § 1041.6, and whether the Bureau should impose any additional lending restrictions to address this concern. Relatedly, the Bureau seeks comment on whether to impose a tolling requirement similar to that under proposed § 1041.6(h) that would apply where the lender or its affiliate are making, in close proximity, covered short-term loans and covered longer-term balloon-payment loans with a duration of 90 days or fewer. Further, the Bureau requests comment on whether additional provisions or commentary examples should be added to proposed § 1041.19, which would prohibit lender actions taken with the intent of evading the proposed rule, to address such concerns.

6(d) Presumption of Unaffordability for a Covered Short-Term Loan During an Unaffordable Outstanding Loan

While the Bureau's research suggests that reborrowing harms are most acute when consumers take out a series of covered short-term loans or covered longer-term balloon-payment loans, the Bureau also has concerns about other reborrowing scenarios. In particular, no matter the loan types involved, the Bureau is concerned about the potential for abuse when a lender or its affiliate offers to make a new loan to an existing customer in circumstances that suggest that the consumer may lack the ability to repay an outstanding loan. The Bureau believes that in addition to the robust residual income analysis that would be required by proposed § 1041.5, applying a presumption may be appropriate in order to specify in more detail how lenders should evaluate whether such consumers have the ability to repay a new loan in certain situations.

Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to apply a presumption of unaffordability when a lender or its affiliate seeks to make a covered short-term loan to an existing consumer in which there are indicia that the consumer cannot afford an outstanding loan with that same lender or its affiliate. If the outstanding loan does not trigger the presumption of unaffordability in proposed § 1041.6(b) or (c) and is not subject to the prohibitions in § 1041.6(f) or (g), the presumption in proposed § 1041.6(d) would apply to a new covered short-term loan if, at the time of the lender's determination under § 1041.5, one or more of the indicia of unaffordability are present.

The triggering conditions would include a delinquency of more than seven days within the preceding 30 days, expressions by the consumer within the preceding 30 days that he or she cannot afford the outstanding loan, certain circumstances indicating that the new loan is motivated by a desire to skip one or more payments on the outstanding loan, and certain circumstances indicating that the new loan is solely to obtain cash to cover upcoming payment or payments on the outstanding loan.

Unlike the presumptions applicable to covered longer-term loans in proposed § 1041.10(c), proposed § 1041.6(d) would not provide an exception to the presumption for cases in which the new loan would result in substantially smaller payments or would substantially lower the total cost of credit for the consumer relative to the outstanding loan. This distinction reflects the Bureau's concerns discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans about the unique risk of consumer injury posed by covered short-term loans because of the requirement that a covered short-term loan be repaid shortly after consummation.

The proposed regulatory text and commentary are very similar for § 1041.6(d) and for § 1041.10(c)(1): The main difference is that proposed § 1041.6(d) would apply where the new loan would be a covered short-term loan, whereas proposed § 1041.10(c)(1) would apply where the new loan would be a covered longer-term loan. A detailed explanation of each element of the presumption and of related commentary is provided below in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.10(c)(1); because of the similarity between the sections, the discussion is not repeated in this section-by-section analysis.

The Bureau believes that the analysis required by proposed § 1041.6(d) may provide greater protection to consumers and certainty to lenders than simply requiring that such transactions be analyzed under proposed § 1041.5 alone. Proposed § 1041.5 would require generally that the lender make a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the contemplated covered short-term loan, taking into account existing major financial obligations that would include the outstanding loan from the same lender or its affiliate. However, the presumption in proposed § 1041.6(d) would provide a more detailed roadmap as to when a new covered short-term loan would not meet the reasonable determination test.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed presumption to prevent the unfair and abusive practice, on each of the particular circumstances indicating unaffordability as proposed in § 1041.6(d)(1) through (4), and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing the burden on lenders. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether the specified conditions sufficiently capture circumstances in which consumers indicate distress in repaying an outstanding loan and on whether there are additional circumstances in which it may be appropriate to trigger the presumption of unaffordability. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to include a specific presumption of unaffordability in the event that the lender or its affiliate has recently contacted the consumer for collections purposes, received a returned check or payment attempt, or has an indication that the consumer's account lacks funds prior to making an attempt to collect payment. The Bureau also solicits comment on the timing elements of the proposed indications of unaffordability, such as whether to trigger the presumption after seven days of delinquency and whether to consider the prior 30 days, and on whether alternative timing conditions, such as considering the consumer's performance over the prior 60 days, would better prevent consumer harm. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the presumption should be modified in particular ways with regard to covered short-term loans that would not be appropriate for covered longer-term loans.

6(e) Overcoming the Presumption of Unaffordability

Proposed § 1041.6(e) would set forth the elements required for a lender to overcome the presumptions of unaffordability in proposed § 1041.6(b), (c), or (d). Proposed § 1041.6(e) would provide that a lender can overcome the presumption of unaffordability only if the lender reasonably determines, based on reliable evidence, that the consumer will have sufficient improvement in financial capacity such that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new loan according to its terms despite the unaffordability of the prior loan. Proposed § 1041.6(e) would require lenders to assess sufficient improvement in financial capacity by comparing the consumer's financial capacity during the period for which the lender is required to make an ability-to-repay determination for the new loan pursuant to § 1041.5(b)(2) to the consumer's financial capacity since obtaining the prior loan or, if the prior loan was not a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan, during the 30 days prior to the lender's determination.

The Bureau proposes several comments to clarify the requirements for a lender to overcome a presumption of unaffordability. Proposed comment 6(e)-1 clarifies that proposed § 1041.6(e) would permit the lender to overcome the presumption in limited circumstances evidencing a sufficient improvement in the consumer's financial capacity for the new loan relative to the prior loan or, in some circumstances, during the prior 30 days. Proposed comments 6(e)-2 and -3 provide illustrative examples of these circumstances. Proposed comment 6(e)-2 clarifies that a lender may overcome a presumption of unaffordability where there is reliable evidence that the need to reborrow is prompted by a decline in income since obtaining the prior loan (or, if the prior loan was not a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan, during the 30 days prior to the lender's determination) that is not reasonably expected to recur for the period during which the lender is underwriting the new covered short-term loan. Proposed comment 6(e)-3 clarifies that a lender may overcome a presumption of unaffordability where there is reliable evidence that the consumer's financial capacity has sufficiently improved since the prior loan (or, if the prior loan was not a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan, during the 30 days prior to the lender's determination) because of an increase in net income or a decrease in major financial obligations for the period during which the lender is underwriting the new covered short-term loan. Proposed comment 6(e)-4 clarifies that reliable evidence consists of verification evidence regarding the consumer's net income and major financial obligations sufficient to make the comparison required under § 1041.6(e). Proposed comment 6(e)-4 further clarifies that a self-certification by the consumer does not constitute reliable evidence unless the lender verifies the facts certified by the consumer through other reliable means.

With respect to comment 6(e)-2, the Bureau believes that if the reborrowing is prompted by a decline in income since obtaining the prior loan (or during the prior 30 days, as applicable) that is not reasonably expected to recur during the period for which the lender is underwriting the new covered short-term loan, the unaffordability of the prior loan, including difficulty repaying an outstanding loan, may not be probative as to the consumer's ability to repay a new covered short-term loan. Similarly, with respect to comment 6(e)-3, the Bureau believes that permitting a lender to overcome the presumption of unaffordability in these circumstances would be appropriate because an increase in the consumer's expected net income or decrease in the consumer's expected payments on major financial obligations since obtaining the prior loan may materially impact the consumer's financial capacity such that a prior unaffordable loan, including difficulty repaying an outstanding loan, may not be probative as to the consumer's ability to repay a new covered short-term loan. The Bureau notes, however, that if, with respect to any given lender, a substantial percentage of consumers who obtain a loan pursuant to proposed § 1041.5 return for a new loan during the reborrowing period, that pattern may provide persuasive evidence that the lender's determinations to make initial loans were not consistent with the ability-to-repay determinations under proposed § 1041.5. As discussed above, the presumptions in proposed § 1041.6 supplement the basic ability-to-repay requirements in proposed § 1041.5 in certain circumstances where a consumer's recent borrowing indicates that a consumer would not have the ability to repay a new covered short-term loan. Accordingly, the procedure in proposed § 1041.6(e) for overcoming the presumption of unaffordability would address only the presumption; lenders would still need to determine ability to repay in accordance with proposed § 1041.5 before making the new covered short-term loan.

Under proposed § 1041.6(e), the same requirement would apply with respect to both the second and third covered short-term loan in a sequence subject to the presumption in proposed § 1041.6(b). However, the Bureau expects that if, with respect to any given lender, a substantial percentage of consumers who obtain a second loan in a sequence return for a third loan, that pattern may provide persuasive evidence that the lender's determinations to make second loans notwithstanding the presumption were not consistent with proposed § 1041.6(e) and the ability-to-repay determinations were not reasonable under proposed § 1041.5. The Bureau further expects that even when a lender determines that the presumption of unaffordability can be overcome pursuant to proposed § 1041.6(e) for the second loan in a sequence, it will be a relatively unusual case in which the consumer will encounter multiple rounds of unexpected income or major financial obligation disruptions such that the lender will be able to reasonably determine that the consumer will have the ability to repay a third covered short-term loan notwithstanding the consumer's need to reborrow after each of the prior loans.

The Bureau recognizes that the standard in proposed § 1041.6(e) would permit a lender to overcome a presumption of unaffordability only in a narrow set of circumstances that are reflected in certain aspects of a consumer's financial capacity and can be verified through reliable evidence. As discussed above with regard to alternatives considered for proposed § 1041.6, the Bureau considered including an additional set of circumstances permitting lenders to overcome the presumptions of unaffordability in the event that the lender determined that the need to reborrow was prompted by an unusual and non-recurring expense rather than by the unaffordability of the prior loan. In light of the challenges with such an approach, described above, the Bureau elected instead to propose § 1041.6(e) without permitting an unusual and non-recurring expense to satisfy the conditions of the test. However, the Bureau solicits comment on including an unusual and non-recurring expense as a third circumstance in which lenders could overcome the presumptions of unaffordability.

The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed standard for overcoming the presumptions of unaffordability. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on the circumstances that would permit a lender to overcome a presumption of unaffordability; on whether other or additional circumstances should be included in the standard; and, if so, how to define such circumstances. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on the appropriate time period for comparison of the consumer's financial capacity between the prior and prospective loans, including, specifically, the different requirements for prior loans of different types. The Bureau solicits comment on the types of information that lenders would be permitted to use as reliable evidence to make the determination in proposed § 1041.6(e).

The Bureau also solicits comment on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer injury while reducing the burden on lenders, including any additional circumstances that should be deemed sufficient to overcome a presumption of unaffordability. The Bureau also solicits comment on how to address unexpected and non-recurring increases in expenses, such as major vehicle repairs or emergency appliance replacements, including on the alternative discussed above with regard to alternatives considered for proposed § 1041.6.

6(f) Prohibition on Loan Sequences of More Than Three Covered Short-Term Loans Made Under § 1041.5

Proposed § 1041.6(f) would prohibit lenders from making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5 to a consumer during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.5 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter if the new covered short-term loan would be the fourth loan in a sequence of covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.5. Proposed comment 6(f)-1 clarifies that the prohibition in proposed § 1041.6(f) does not limit a lender's ability to make a covered longer-term loan under proposed § 1041.9, § 1041.11, or § 1041.12.

As discussed above, the ability-to-repay determination required by proposed § 1041.5 is intended to protect consumers from what the Bureau believes may be the unfair and abusive practice of making a covered short-term loan without making a reasonable determination of the consumer's ability to repay the loan. If a consumer who obtains such a loan seeks a second loan when, or shortly after, the payment on the first loan is due, that suggests that the prior loan payments were not affordable and triggered the new loan application, and that a new covered short-term loan will lead to the same result. The Bureau believes that if a consumer has obtained three covered short-term loans in quick succession and seeks to obtain yet another covered short-term loan when or shortly after payment on the last loan is due, the fourth loan will almost surely be unaffordable for the consumer.

The Bureau's research underscores the risk that consumers who reach the fourth loan in a sequence of covered short-term loans will wind up in a long cycle of debt. Most significantly, the Bureau found that 66 percent of loan sequences that reach a fourth loan end up having at least seven loans, and 47 percent of loan sequences that reach a fourth loan end up having at least 10 loans. For consumers paid weekly, bi-weekly, or semimonthly, 12 percent of loan sequences that reach a fourth loan end up having at least 20 loans during a 10-month period. And for loans taken out by consumers who are paid monthly, more than 40 percent of all loans to these borrowers were in sequences that, once begun, persisted for the rest of the year for which data were available.

Further, the opportunity to overcome the presumption for the second and third loan in a sequence means that by the time that the mandatory cooling-off period in proposed § 1041.6(f) would apply, three prior ability-to-repay determinations will have proven inconsistent with the consumer's actual experience, including two determinations that the consumer had overcome the presumption of unaffordability. If the consumer continues reborrowing during the term of or shortly after repayment of each loan, the pattern suggests that the consumer's financial circumstances do not lend themselves to reliable determinations of ability to repay a covered short-term loan. After three loans in a sequence, the Bureau believes it would be all but impossible under the proposed framework for a lender to accurately determine that a fourth covered short-term loan in a sequence would be affordable for the consumer. The Bureau believes this is particularly the case because the presumption of unaffordability under proposed § 1041.6(b) would escalate the scrutiny for each subsequent loan in a three-loan sequence. The consumer keeps returning to reborrow in spite of a lender or lenders having determined on two prior occasions that the consumer's financial capacity had sufficiently improved to overcome the presumption of unaffordability, further evidencing a pattern of reborrowing that could spiral into a debt cycle.

In light of the data described above, the Bureau believes that by the time a consumer reaches the fourth loan in a sequence of covered short-term loans, the likelihood of the consumer returning for additional covered short-term loans within a short period of time warrants additional measures to mitigate the risk that the lender is not furthering a cycle of debt on unaffordable covered short-term loans. To prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.4, the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to impose a mandatory cooling-off period for 30 days following the third covered short-term loan in a sequence. Accordingly, proposed § 1041.6(f) would prohibit lenders from making a covered short-term loan under § 1041.5 during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under § 1041.5 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter if the new covered short-term loan would be the fourth loan in a sequence of covered short-term loans made under § 1041.5.

The Bureau believes that given the requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.5 to determine ability to repay before making an initial covered short-term loan (other than a loan made under the conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.7), and given the further requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.6(b) with respect to additional covered short-term loans in a sequence, few consumers will actually reach the point where they have obtained three covered short-term loans in a sequence and even fewer will reach that point and still need to reborrow. Such a three-loan sequence can occur only if the consumer turned out to not be able to afford a first loan, despite a lender's determination of ability to repay, and that the same occurred for the second and third loans as well, despite a second and third determination of ability to repay, including a determination that the presumption of unaffordability for the second loan and then the third loan could be overcome. However, to provide a backstop in the event that the consumer does obtain three covered short-term loans made under § 1041.5 within a short period of time proposed § 1041.6(f) would impose a prohibition on continued lending to protect consumers from further unaffordable loans. For consumers who reach that point, the Bureau believes that terminating a loan sequence after three loans may enable the consumer to escape from the cycle of indebtedness. At the same time, if any such consumers needed to continue to borrow, they could obtain a covered longer-term loan, provided that a lender reasonably determined that such a loan was within the consumer's ability to repay, pursuant to §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10, or a covered longer-term loan under either of the conditional exemptions in proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12.

During the SBREFA process, the Bureau received substantial feedback about the proposal under consideration to impose a conclusive presumption of unaffordability following the third covered short-term loan in a sequence. Most notably, many SERs provided feedback to the Bureau indicating that they rely heavily on consumers who regularly take out a chain of short-term loans and that the limit of three loans would cause a significant decrease in revenue and profit for their businesses. A study submitted by several of the SERs provides evidence to substantiate their claim. Similarly, as discussed further at Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the Bureau's examination of data obtained from larger lenders likewise indicates that a large percentage of the loan volume of payday lenders comes from consumers trapped in prolonged loan sequences.

As explained with regard to proposed § 1041.6(b)(1) above, the Bureau believes that, even without the mandatory cooling-off period under proposed § 1041.6(f), there would be relatively few instances in which lenders could reasonably determine that a consumer had the ability to repay successive loans in a sequence. As discussed in part VI, the Bureau believes that the primary impact on loan volume and lender revenue from the ability-to-repay requirements would be the decline in initial covered short-term loans made under the ability-to-repay requirements. Moreover, the fact that the proposal would have such a disruptive impact on these lenders' current source of revenue does not, in the Bureau's view, detract from the appropriateness of these provisions to prevent the unfair and abusive practice that the Bureau has preliminarily identified. Indeed, the Bureau believes that the lenders' concern about the revenue impact of limiting extended cycles of reborrowing confirms the Bureau's reasons for believing that these provisions may be appropriate to prevent the unfair and abusive practice. The proposed cooling-off period would last 30 days for the same reason that the Bureau is using that time frame to draw the line as to when a new loan is likely the result of the unaffordability of the prior loan.

The Small Business Review Panel Report recommended that the Bureau request comment on whether permitting a sequence of more than three covered short-term loans would enable the Bureau to fulfill its stated objectives for the rulemaking while reducing the revenue impact on small entities. Conversely, during the SBREFA process and associated outreach following publication of the Small Business Review Panel Report, other stakeholders suggested that the mandatory cooling-off period should apply in additional circumstances, such as based on a pattern of sustained usage of covered short-term loans or covered longer-term balloon-payment loans over a period of time, even if the usage pattern did not involve three-loan sequences.

The Bureau solicits comment on the necessity of the proposed prohibition and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing the burden on lenders. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether a presumption of unaffordability rather than a mandatory cooling-off period would be sufficient to prevent the targeted harms and, if so, whether such presumptions should be structured to match proposed § 1041.6(b) and (e), or should be tailored in some other way. Additionally, consistent with the Small Business Review Panel Report, the Bureau solicits comment on whether three loans is the appropriate threshold for the prohibition or whether permitting lenders to overcome the presumption of unaffordability for a greater number of loans before the mandatory cooling-off period would provide the intended consumer protection while mitigating the burden on lenders. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether the mandatory cooling-off period should extend for a period greater than 30 days or should apply in any other circumstances, such as based on the total number of covered short-term loans a consumer has obtained during a specified period of time or the number of days the consumer has been in debt during a specified period of time. Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether there is a pattern of reborrowing on a mix of covered short-term loans and covered longer-term balloon-payment loans for which a mandatory cooling-off period would be appropriate and, if so, what refinements to the prohibition in proposed § 1041.6(f) would be appropriate for such an approach.

6(g) Prohibition on Making a Covered Short-Term Loan Under § 1041.5 Following a Covered Short-Term Loan Made Under § 1041.7

Proposed § 1041.6(g) would prohibit a lender from making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.5 during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter. The proposed prohibition corresponds to the condition in proposed § 1041.7(c)(2) that would prohibit making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7 during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.5 (or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made under proposed § 1041.9) outstanding and for 30 days thereafter. The Bureau is including this provision in proposed § 1041.6 for ease of reference for lenders so that they can look to a single provision of the rule for a list of prohibitions and presumptions that affect the making of covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.5, but discusses the underlying rationale in additional detail in the section-by-section analysis for proposed § 1041.7(c)(2) below.

Proposed § 1041.7 sets forth numerous protective conditions for a covered short-term loan conditionally exempt from the ability-to-repay requirements of proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6; these conditions are discussed in depth in connection with that section. As a parallel provision to proposed § 1041.7(c)(2), the Bureau proposes the prohibition in proposed § 1041.6(g) in order to prevent undermining the protections of proposed § 1041.7, most significantly, the principal reduction requirements of proposed § 1041.7(b)(1). As discussed with regard to that provision, the Bureau believes that the principal reduction requirements of proposed § 1041.7(b)(3) are an essential component of the proposed conditional exemption. Additionally, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.7(c)(2), the Bureau believes that providing separate “paths” for making covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.5 and proposed § 1041.7 would facilitate a more consistent framework for regulation in this market and make the rule simpler for both consumers and lenders.

The Bureau solicits comment on the necessity of the proposed prohibition and on any alternatives that would achieve the Bureau's objectives here while reducing the burden on lenders.

6(h) Determining Period Between Consecutive Covered Loans

Proposed § 1041.6(h) would define how a lender must determine the number of days between covered loans for the purposes of proposed § 1041.6(b), (c), (f), and (g). In particular, proposed § 1041.6(h) would specify that days on which a consumer had a non-covered bridge loan outstanding do not count toward the determination of time periods specified by proposed § 1041.6(b), (c), (f), and (g). Proposed comment 6(h)-1 clarifies that § 1041.6(h) would apply if the lender or its affiliate makes a non-covered bridge loan to a consumer during the time period in which any covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made by a lender or its affiliate is outstanding and for 30 days thereafter. Proposed comment 6(h)-2 provides an example.

As discussed in more detail in the section-by-section of proposed § 1041.2(a)(13), defining non-covered bridge loan, the Bureau is concerned that there is some risk that lenders might seek to evade the proposed rule designed to prevent unfair and abusive practices by making certain types of loans that fall outside the scope of the proposed rule during the 30-day period following repayment of a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan. Since the due date of such a loan would be beyond that 30-day period, the lender would be free to make another covered short-term loan subsequent to the non-covered bridge loan without having to comply with proposed § 1041.6. Proposed § 1041.2(a)(13) would define non-covered bridge loan as a non-recourse pawn loan made within 30 days of an outstanding covered short-term loan and that the consumer is required to repay within 90 days of its consummation. The Bureau is seeking comment under that provision as to whether additional non-covered loans should be added to the definition.

As with all of the provisions of proposed § 1041.6, in proposing § 1041.6(g) and its accompanying commentary, the Bureau is relying on its authority to prevent unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices under the Dodd-Frank Act. For purposes of proposed § 1041.6(g) in particular, the Bureau is also relying on its anti-evasion authority under section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act. As discussed at part IV, Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(1) provides that the Bureau's director may prescribe rules “as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.” The Bureau believes that the requirements of proposed § 1041.6(g) would prevent evasions of the reborrowing restrictions under proposed § 1041.6 by not counting the days on which a non-covered bridge loan is outstanding toward the determination of whether a subsequent covered short-term loan made by the lender or its affiliate is part of the same loan sequence as the prior covered short-term loan, or is made within 30 days of the prior loan outstanding, as applicable. This would prevent evasion insofar as, in the absence of this proposed restriction, a lender or its affiliate could make a non-covered bridge loan to keep a consumer in debt on a non-covered bridge loan during the reborrowing period and so wait to make the new covered short-term loan more than 30 calendar days, but with fewer days without non-covered bridge loan, after the prior loan, which would evade the reborrowing restrictions in proposed § 1041.6. The Bureau is concerned that this type of circumvention of the reborrowing restrictions could lead to lenders making covered short-term loans that consumers do not have the ability to repay.

Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to exclude from the period of time between affected loans, those days on which a consumer has a non-covered bridge loan outstanding. The Bureau believes that defining the period of time between covered loans in this manner may be appropriate to prevent lenders from making covered short-term loans for which the consumer does not have the ability to repay.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the standard in proposed § 1041.6(h) and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing burden on lenders.

Section 1041.7 Conditional Exemption for Certain Covered Short-Term Loans

For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is proposing to exempt covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7 (also referred to herein as a Section 7 loan) from proposed §§ 1041.4, 1041.5, and 1041.6. Proposed § 1041.7 includes a number of screening and structural protections for consumers who are receiving loans not subject to the proposed ability-to-repay determination. These provisions would reduce the likelihood and magnitude of consumer harms from unaffordable payments on covered short-term loans, including addressing the common occurrence that such loans lead to sequences of reborrowing by consumers.

Background

Based on its own and outside research, the Bureau recognizes that, even without ability-to-repay assessments, some consumers repay a short-term loan when due without further reborrowing. These consumers avoid some, if not all, of the harms with which the Bureau is concerned. For example, as described in the CFPB Report on Supplemental Findings, approximately 22 percent of new payday loan sequences do not result in any reborrowing within the ensuing 30 days. While the Bureau believes that most of these consumers would be able to demonstrate their ability to repay and thus continue to obtain loans under the Bureau's proposal, the Bureau recognizes that there may be a sub-segment of consumers for whom this is not true and who would be denied loans even though they could, in fact, afford the payment. These consumers, for example, may be paid, in whole or in part, in cash and may not deposit their wages into a transaction account, preventing verification of their income.

Some of these consumers may take out a payday loan, repay it on the contractual due date, and never again use a payday loan. Others may return on another occasion, when a new need arises, likely for another short sequence. Further, even among those who do reborrow, the Bureau's research indicates that about 16 percent of payday sequences ended with repayment within three loans, without either reborrowing within 30 days after the last payment or defaulting.

In addition, the Bureau's research suggests that even consumers who reborrow many times might have shorter loan sequences if they were offered the option of taking out smaller loans each time they returned to reborrow—instead of being presented only with the option of rolling over the loan (in States where it is permitted) or repaying the full amount of the loan plus the finance charge, which often leads to taking out another loan in the same amount.

Finally, the Bureau recognizes that the verification and ability-to-repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 would impose compliance costs that some lenders, especially smaller lenders, may find difficult to absorb for covered short-term loans, particularly those relatively small in amount.

In light of these considerations, the Bureau believes that it would further the purposes and objectives of the Dodd-Frank Act, to provide a simpler alternative to the ability-to-repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 for covered short-term loans, but with robust alternative protections against the harms from loans with unaffordable payments. As described in more detail below, proposed § 1041.7 would permit lenders to extend consumers a sequence of up to three loans, in which the principal is reduced by one-third at each stage and certain other conditions are met, without following the ability-to-repay requirements specified in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6.

The Bureau recognizes that this alternative approach for covered short-term loans in proposed § 1041.7 has drawn criticism from a variety of stakeholders. During the SBREFA process and the Bureau's general outreach following the Bureau's release of the Small Business Review Panel Outline, many lenders and other industry stakeholders argued that the alternative requirements for covered short-term loans presented in the Small Business Review Panel Outline would not provide sufficient flexibility. Several SERs whose companies make covered short-term loans expressed the view that, despite the reduction in burdens associated with the ability-to-repay requirements, the alternative requirements discussed in the Small Business Review Panel Outline would not provide for sufficient loan volume to sustain their profitability. A group of SERs submitted a report by third party consultants that projected significant revenue loss and reductions in profitability for small lenders if they made covered short-term loans solely under the alternative approach.

In contrast, consumer advocates, during the Bureau's outreach following its release of the Small Business Review Panel Outline, have argued that permitting covered short-term loans to be made without an ability-to-repay determination would weaken the overall rule framework. A letter signed by several hundred national and State consumer advocates urged the Bureau, before the release of the Small Business Review Panel Outline, not to create any alternatives to the ability-to-repay requirement that would sanction a series of repeat loans.

The Bureau has carefully considered this feedback in developing the proposed rule. With regard to the industry argument that the proposal considered in the Small Business Review Panel Outline would not allow for lenders to remain profitable, the Bureau believes that this concern is the product of many lenders' reliance on long sequences of covered short-term loans to consumers. Since the Bureau began studying the market for payday, vehicle title, and similar loans several years ago, the Bureau has noted its significant concern with the amount of long-term reborrowing observed in the market and on the apparent dependence of many lenders on such reborrowing for a significant portion of their revenues. Proposed § 1041.7 would permit consumers with emergencies or occasional financial shortfalls to receive a limited number of covered short-term loans without the protection of an ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. For this very reason, proposed § 1041.7 would provide these consumers with an alternative set of protective requirements.

The Bureau notes that, as discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, covered short-term loans are frequently marketed to consumers as loans that are intended for short-term, infrequent use. The dependency of many lenders on long-term reborrowing is in tension with this marketing and exploits consumers' behavioral biases. The Bureau is sensitive to the impacts that the proposed rule would have on small entities. To the extent small lenders are relying on repeated reborrowing and long loan sequences, however, the Bureau has the same concerns it has expressed more generally with this market.

In proposing § 1041.7, the Bureau does not mean to suggest that lenders would generally be able to maintain their current business model by making loans permitted by proposed § 1041.7. To the contrary, the Bureau acknowledges that a substantial fraction of loans currently made would not qualify for the exemption under proposed § 1041.7 because they are a part of extended cycles of reborrowing that are very harmful to consumers. Some lenders may be able to capture scale economies and build a business model that relies solely on making loans under proposed § 1041.7. For other lenders, the Bureau expects that loans made under proposed § 1041.7 would become one element of a business model that would also incorporate covered short-term and covered longer-term loans made using an ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 and §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10, respectively.

With respect to the argument from consumer advocates, the Bureau does not believe that providing a carefully constructed alternative to the proposed ability-to-repay requirements in §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 would undermine the consumer protections in this proposed rulemaking. As discussed above, the exemption would provide a simpler means of obtaining a covered short-term loan for consumers for whom the loan is less likely to prove harmful. Moreover, the Bureau has built into proposed § 1041.7 a number of safeguards, including the principal stepdown requirements and the limit on the number of loans in a sequence of Section 7 loans, to ensure that consumers cannot become trapped in long-term debt on an ostensibly short-term loan and to reduce the risk of harms from reborrowing, default, and collateral harms from making unaffordable loan payments during a short sequence of Section 7 loans. The proposal reflects the Bureau's belief that the requirements in proposed § 1041.7 would appropriately balance the interest of providing strong consumer protections with the aim of permitting access to less risky credit.

By including an alternative set of requirements under proposed § 1041.7, the Bureau is not suggesting that regulation of covered short-term loans at the State, local, or tribal level should encompass only the provisions of proposed § 1041.7. Proposed § 1041.7(a) would not provide an exemption from any other provision of law. Many States and other non-Federal jurisdictions have made and likely will continue to make legislative and regulatory judgments to impose usury limits, prohibitions on making high cost covered short-term loans altogether, and other strong consumer protections under legal authorities that in some cases extend beyond those of the Bureau. The proposed regulation would coexist with—rather than supplant—State, local, and tribal regulations that impose a stronger protective framework. Proposed § 1041.7 would also not permit loans to servicemembers and their dependents that would violate the Military Lending Act and its implementing regulations. (See discussion in part IV.)

The Bureau seeks comment generally on whether to provide an alternative to the ability-to-repay requirements under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 for covered short-term loans that satisfy certain requirements. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether proposed § 1041.7 would appropriately balance the considerations discussed above regarding consumer protection and access to credit that presents a lower risk of harm to consumers. The Bureau, further, seeks comment on whether covered short-term loans could be made in compliance with proposed § 1041.7 in States and other jurisdictions that permit covered short-term loans. The Bureau also seeks comment generally on the costs and other burdens that would be imposed on lenders, including small entities, by proposed § 1041.7.

Legal Authority

Proposed § 1041.7 would establish an alternative set of requirements for covered short-term loans that, if complied with by lenders, would conditionally exempt them from the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.4 and the ability-to-repay requirements under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. The Bureau is proposing the requirements of proposed § 1041.7 pursuant to the Bureau's authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) to grant conditional exemptions in certain circumstances from rules issued by the Bureau under the Bureau's Dodd-Frank Act legal authorities. With respect to proposed § 1041.7(e), the Bureau is relying on the Bureau's authority under sections 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which allows the Bureau to prescribe rules to ensure that the features of a consumer financial product or service are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers, and section 1032(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides for the use of model forms.

Section 1022(b)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act—Exemption Authority

Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) authorizes the Bureau to, by rule, “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any class of . . . consumer financial products or services” from any provision of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act or from any rule issued under Title X as the Bureau determines “necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives” of Title X. The purposes of Title X are set forth in Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(a), which provides that the Bureau shall implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently “for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that [such markets] are fair, transparent and competitive.”

The objectives of Title X are set forth in Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b). Section 1021(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Bureau to exercise its authorities under Federal consumer financial law for the purposes of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services: (1) Consumers “are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(1) ); (2) consumers “are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(2) ); (3) “outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(3) ); (4) “Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair completion” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(4) ); and “markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(5) ).

When issuing an exemption under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A), the Bureau is required under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(B) to take into consideration, as appropriate, three factors. These enumerated factors are: (1) The total assets of the class of covered persons; (2) the volume of transactions involving consumer financial products or services in which the class of covered persons engages; and (3) existing provisions of law which are applicable to the consumer financial product or service and the extent to which such provisions provide consumers with adequate protections.

The Bureau believes that the proposed conditional exemption for covered short-term loans is appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, for three primary reasons. First, proposed § 1041.7 is consistent with both the Bureau's statutory purpose under Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(a) of seeking to implement consumer financial law consistently to ensure consumers' access to fair, transparent, and competitive markets for consumer financial products and services and the Bureau's related statutory objective under Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(5) of ensuring that such markets operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access with respect to consumer financial products and services. As described in more detail in the section-by-section analysis below, proposed § 1041.7 would help to preserve access to credit by providing lenders an option for making covered short-term loans that is an alternative to—and a conditional exemption from—the proposed ability-to-repay requirements. Because lenders making Section 7 loans would be conditionally exempt from complying with the ability-to-repay requirements under §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, making loans under proposed § 1041.7 would reduce the compliance costs for lenders that make covered short-term loans relative to the costs of complying with the ability-to-repay requirements under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. This reduction in compliance costs would help facilitate access. Moreover, consumers who lack the necessary verification evidence to qualify for a covered short-term loan under the proposed ability-to-repay requirements (for example, those consumers who are paid in cash and thus cannot document income through a pay stub) would be able to receive a covered short-term loan under this option subject to the requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.7. This further advances the statutory purposes and objective related to facilitating consumers' access to credit.

Second, the proposed conditional exemption for covered short-term loans is consistent with the Bureau's statutory objective under Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(2) of ensuring that consumers are protected from unfair or abusive acts and practices. The Bureau is proposing in § 1041.4 that it is an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to make a covered short-term loan without making a reasonable determination that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. In §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, the Bureau is proposing to prevent that unfair and abusive practice by prescribing ability-to-repay requirements for lenders making covered short-term loans. Although lenders making Section 7 loans would not be required to satisfy these ability-to-repay requirements, they would be required to satisfy the requirements for the conditional exemption under proposed § 1041.7. As described in more detail in this section-by-section analysis below, the requirements for proposed § 1041.7 are designed to protect consumers from the harms that result from lenders making short-term, small-dollar loans with unaffordable payments—namely, repeat borrowing, but also defaults and collateral harms from making unaffordable loan payments. These are the same types of harms that the ability-to-repay requirements under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 aim to address.

Third, the conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.7 is consistent with the Bureau's statutory objective under Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(1) of ensuring that consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions. Under proposed § 1041.7(e), the Bureau would impose a series of disclosure requirements in connection with the making of Section 7 loans. These disclosures would notify the consumer of important aspects of the operation of these transactions, and would contribute significantly to consumers receiving timely and understandable information about taking out Section 7 loans.

The Bureau, furthermore, has taken the statutory factors listed in Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(B) into consideration, as appropriate. The first two factors are not materially relevant because these factors pertain to exempting a class of covered persons, whereas proposed § 1041.7 would conditionally exempt a class of transactions—Section 7 loans—from certain requirements of the proposed rule. Nor is the Bureau basing the proposed conditional exemption on the third factor. Certain proposed requirements under § 1041.7 are similar to requirements under certain applicable State laws and local laws, as discussed below in the section-by-section analysis. However, the Bureau is not aware of any State or locality that has combined all of the elements that the Bureau believes are needed to adequately protect consumers from the harms associated with unaffordable payments in absence of an ability-to-repay requirement.

The Bureau emphasizes that the proposed conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.7 would be a partial exemption. That is, Section 7 loans would still be subject to all of the requirements of the Bureau's proposed rule other than the ability-to-repay requirements under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether the Bureau should rely upon the Bureau's statutory exemption authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) to exempt loans that satisfy the requirements of proposed § 1041.7 from the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.4 and from the ability-to-repay requirements proposed under §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. Alternatively, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the requirements under proposed § 1041.7 should instead be based on the Bureau's authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(b) to prescribe rules identifying as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices and to include in such rules requirements for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices.

Dodd-Frank Act Sections 1032(a) and 1032(b)

The Bureau is proposing to require disclosures in § 1041.7(e) related to covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.7 pursuant to the Bureau's authority under sections 1032(a) and (b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Bureau “may prescribe rules to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product or service, both initially and over the term of the product or service, are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service, in light of the facts and circumstances.” The authority granted to the Bureau in section 1032(a) is broad, and empowers the Bureau to prescribe rules regarding the disclosure of the features of consumer financial products and services generally. Accordingly, the Bureau may prescribe disclosure requirements in rules regarding particular features even if other Federal consumer financial laws do not specifically require disclosure of such features. Specifically, the Bureau is proposing to require a lender to provide notices before making the first and third loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans that would inform consumers of the risk of taking such a loan and restrictions on taking subsequent Section 7 loans in a sequence.

Under Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(b)(1), “any final rule prescribed by the Bureau under [section 1032] requiring disclosures may include a model form that may be used at the option of the covered person for provision of the required disclosures.” Any model form must contain a clear and conspicuous disclosure according to Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(b)(2). At a minimum, this clear and conspicuous disclosure must use plain language comprehensible to consumers, contain a clear format and design, and succinctly explain the information that must be communicated to the consumer. Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(b)(3) provides that any model form the Bureau issues pursuant to Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(b) shall be validated through consumer testing. In developing the model forms for the proposed notices, the Bureau conducted two rounds of qualitative consumer testing in September and October of 2015. The testing results are provided in the FMG Report. Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(d) provides that, “Any covered person that uses a model form included with a rule issued under this section shall be deemed to be in compliance with the disclosure requirements of this section with respect to such model form.”

7(a) Conditional Exemption for Certain Covered Short-Term Loans

Proposed § 1041.7(a) would establish a conditional exemption for certain covered short-term loans. Under proposed § 1041.7(a), a covered short-term loan that is made in compliance with the requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.7(b) through (e) could make a covered short-term loan would be exempt from §§ 1041.4, 1041.5, and 1041.6. Proposed § 1041.7(a), like other sections of proposed part 1041, would not pre-empt State, local, or tribal restrictions that impose further limits on covered short-term loans, or that prohibit high-cost, covered short-term loans altogether. Proposed § 1041.7(a) would require the lender, in determining whether the proposed requirements in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are satisfied, to obtain information about the consumer's borrowing history from the records of the lender, the records of the lender's affiliates, and a consumer report from an information system registered under proposed § 1041.17(c)(2) or proposed § 1041.17(d)(2).

Proposed comment 7(a)-1 explains that a lender could make a covered short-term loan without making the ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, provided it complied with the requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.7(b) through (e). Proposed comment 7(a)-2 clarifies that a lender cannot make a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7 if no information system is registered under proposed § 1041.17(c)(2) or proposed § 1041.17(d)(2) and available when the lender seeks to make the loan. Proposed comment 7(a)-2 also clarifies that a lender may be unable to obtain a report on the consumer's borrowing history if, for example, information systems have been registered under proposed § 1041.17(c)(2) or proposed § 1041.17(d)(2) but are not yet operational or registered information systems are operational but all are temporarily unavailable.

The Bureau believes it is appropriate to condition the exemption in proposed § 1041.7 on the ability of a lender to obtain and review of a consumer report from a registered information system. The Bureau believes that this approach is warranted because making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7 does not require a detailed analysis of the consumer's ability to repay the loan under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. Rather, proposed § 1041.7 protects consumers through a carefully calibrated system of requirements to ensure, among other things, that a consumer can reduce principal amounts over the course of a loan sequence. Because lenders are not required to conduct an ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, holistic information about the consumer's recent borrowing history with the lender, as well as other lenders, is especially important for ensuring the integrity of the requirements in proposed § 1041.7.

While the Bureau had proposed an income verification requirement in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, the proposed rule would not require a lender to verify a consumer's income before making a loan under proposed § 1041.7. Upon further consideration, the Bureau believes that an income verification requirement is not necessary in proposed § 1041.7. Because lenders would know at the outset that they would have to recoup the entire principal amount and finance charges within a loan sequence of no more than three loans, the Bureau believes that lenders would have strong incentives to verify that consumers have sufficient income to repay within that window. In addition, as discussed above, the Bureau believes that there are meaningful advantages to providing flexibility both for consumers who, in fact, have capacity to repay one or more covered short-term loans but cannot easily provide the income documentation required in proposed § 1041.5(c), and for lenders in reducing compliance costs relative to the income documentation requirement in proposed § 1041.5(c). In light of these considerations, the Bureau believes that it is appropriate to allow lenders flexibility to adapt their current income verification processes without dictating a specific approach under proposed § 1041.7.

Consistent with the recommendations of the Small Business Review Panel Report, the Bureau seeks comment on the cost to small entities of obtaining information about consumer borrowing history and on potential ways to reduce the operational burden of obtaining this information. The Bureau also seeks comment on not requiring lenders to verify a consumer's income when making a covered short-term loan under § 1041.7. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether lenders should be required to verify a consumer's income when making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7, and if so how to craft a standard that would offer additional protection for consumers and yet preserve the advantages of a more flexible system relative to proposed § 1041.5(c).

7(b) Loan Term Requirements

Proposed § 1041.7(b) would require a covered short-term loan that is made under proposed § 1041.7 to comply with certain requirements as to the loan terms and structure. The requirements under proposed § 1041.7(b), in conjunction with the other requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.7(c) through (e), would reduce the likelihood that consumers who take Section 7 loans would end up in extended loan sequences, default, or suffer substantial collateral harms from making unaffordable loan payments on covered short-term loans. Furthermore, these proposed requirements would limit the harm to consumers in the event they are unable to repay the initial loan as scheduled. Discussion of each of these loan term requirements is contained in the section-by-section analysis below. If the loan term requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.7(b) are not satisfied, the lender would not be able to make a loan under proposed § 1041.7.

7(b)(1)

Proposed § 1041.7(b)(1) would require a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 to be subject to certain principal amount limitations. Specifically, proposed § 1041.7(b)(1)(i) would require that the first loan in a loan sequence of Section 7 loans have a principal amount that is no greater than $500. Proposed § 1041.7(b)(1)(ii) would require that the second loan in a loan sequence of Section 7 loans have a principal amount that is no greater than two-thirds of the principal amount of the first loan in the loan sequence. Proposed § 1041.7(b)(1)(iii) would require that the third loan in a loan sequence of Section 7 loans have a principal amount that is no greater than one-third of the principal amount of the first loan in the loan sequence.

Proposed comment 7(b)(1)-1 cross-references the definition and commentary regarding loan sequences. Proposed comment 7(b)(1)-2 clarifies that the principal amount limitations apply regardless of whether the loans are made by the same lender, an affiliate, or unaffiliated lenders. Proposed comment 7(b)(1)-3 notes that the principal amount limitations under proposed § 1041.7 apply to both rollovers of an existing loan when they are permitted under State law and new loans that are counted as part of the same loan sequence. Proposed comment 7(b)(1)-4 gives an example of a loan sequence in which the principal amount is stepped down in thirds.

The Bureau believes that the principal cap and principal reduction requirements under proposed § 1041.7(b)(1) are critical to reducing both the risk of extended loan sequences and the risk that the loan payments over limited shorter loan sequence would prove unaffordable for consumers. Because proposed § 1041.7 would not require an ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 for a covered short-term loan, some consumers may not be able to repay these loans as scheduled. Absent protections, these consumers would be in the position of having to reborrow or default on the loan or fail to meet other major financial obligations or basic living expenses as the loan comes due—that is, the same position faced by consumers in the market today. As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the Bureau has found that when that occurs, consumers generally reborrow for the same amount as the prior loan, rather than pay off a portion of the loan amount on the previous loan and reduce their debt burden. As a result, consumers may face a similar situation when the next loan comes due, except that they have fallen further into debt. The Bureau has found that this lack of principal reduction, or “self-amortization,” over the course of a loan sequence is correlated with higher rates of reborrowing and default.

Proposed § 1041.7(b)(1) would work in tandem with proposed § 1041.7(c)(3), which would limit a loan sequence of Section 7 loans to no more than three loans. The proposed requirements together would ensure that a consumer may not receive more than three consecutive covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7 and that the principal would decrease from a maximum of $500 in the first loan over the course of a loan sequence. Without the principal reduction requirements, consumers could reborrow twice and face difficulty in repaying the third loan in the loan sequence, similar to the difficulty that they had faced when the first loan was due. The proposed principal reduction feature is intended to steadily reduce consumers' debt burden and permit consumers to pay off the original loan amount in more manageable increments over the course of a loan sequence with three loans.

The Bureau believes that the proposed $500 limit for the first loan is appropriate in light of current State regulatory limits and would reduce the risks that unaffordable payments cause consumers to reborrow, fail to meet other major financial obligations or basic living expenses, or default during a loan sequence. As noted in part II.B above, many State statutes authorizing payday loans impose caps on the loan amount, with $500 being a common limit. In States that have lower limits on loan amounts, these lower limits would prevail. In addition, empirical research has found that average loan sizes are well under this threshold.

In the absence of an ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, the Bureau believes that loans with a principal amount larger than $500 would carry a significant risk of having unaffordable payments. A loan with a principal amount of $1,000, for example, would be much harder for consumers to pay off in a single payment, and even with the stepdown features of § 1041.7(b)(1), would require the consumer to pay at least $333 plus finance charges on each of the second and third loans in the loan sequence. In contrast, on a loan with a principal amount of $500 (the largest permissible amount under proposed § 1041.7(b)(1)), a minimum of $166.66 in principal reduction would be required with each loan. For consumers who are turning to covered short-term loans because they are already struggling to meet their major financial obligations and basic living expenses, the difference between payments of $333 and $167 may be quite substantial and distinguish a loan with affordable payments from a loan with unaffordable payments.

The proposed principal reduction requirements are consistent with the guidance of a Federal prudential regulator and ordinances adopted by a number of municipalities across the country. The FDIC, in its “Affordable Small-Dollar Loan Guidelines” in 2007, stated that, “Institutions are encouraged to structure payment programs in a manner that fosters the reduction of principal owed. For closed-end products, loans should be structured to provide for affordable and amortizing payments.” Several Oregon municipalities, including Eugene and Portland, impose a 25 percent principal stepdown requirement on renewals. A number of cities in Texas, including Dallas, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio, have also adopted similar principal stepdown requirements.

The Bureau also has given extensive consideration to proposing an “off-ramp” for consumers struggling to repay a covered short-term loan, in lieu of the principal reduction structure. The Bureau identified this approach as an alternative in its Small Business Review Panel Outline. Under this approach, lenders would be required to provide a no-cost extension of the third loan in a sequence (the off-ramp) if a consumer is unable to repay the loan according to its terms. As specifically proposed in the Outline, the third loan would be repaid over an additional four installments without incurring additional cost. As discussed above in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans and in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, similar extended payment plans are required to be offered in some States and are a feature of some industry trade association best practices. In light of concerns that lenders may be failing to inform consumers of their options and actively discouraging the use of off-ramps, the Bureau noted in the Small Business Review Panel Outline that it was considering whether additional features would be needed to facilitate access to the off-ramp and prevent lender discouragement of off-ramp usage. The Small Business Review Panel Outline listed examples of possible additional conditions on the off-ramp, such as requiring lenders to notify consumers of their right to take the off-ramp and prohibiting lenders from initiating collections activity on the loan before offering the consumer an off-ramp.

During the SBREFA process, the Bureau received feedback from the SERs regarding the off-ramp option, as well as the principal reduction option discussed in the Small Business Review Panel Outline. Some SERs noted that the proposed principal reduction requirement could present compliance challenges. For example, these SERs stated that both the principal reduction requirement and the off-ramp requirement under consideration could conflict with State law requiring single payment transactions. As an alternative, one SER recommended that the Bureau adopt a provision in Washington State law that requires lenders to offer an installment plan to consumers who are unable to repay their loan. During broader outreach with stakeholders following the release of the Small Business Review Panel Outline, industry stakeholders suggested that the Bureau should consider requiring an off-ramp option for borrowers unable to repay a covered short-term loan, in lieu of the proposed ability-to-repay requirements coupled with the alternative requirements. When discussing the principal reduction and off-ramp options in the context of the framework laid out in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, industry stakeholders were critical of both approaches and did not state a preference. Consumer advocates have expressed support for the principal reduction approach based on their view that off-ramps have been ineffective at the State level.

The Bureau has carefully considered the SERs' comments and the broader stakeholder feedback following the release of the Small Business Review Panel Outline. The Bureau does not believe the principal reduction requirements under proposed § 1041.7(b)(1) would conflict with State law requiring single payment transactions. The proposed requirement would not mandate payment of the loan in installments or amortization of the initial loan in the sequence. Rather, a lender that makes a series of covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7 would be required to reduce the principal amount over a sequence of three loans so that a loan sequence would be functionally similar to an amortizing loan.

After gathering substantial input and careful consideration, the Bureau believes that the off-ramp approach would have three significant disadvantages relative to the principal reduction structure outlined above. First, the Bureau, in proposing an alternative to the requirement to assess a consumer's ability to repay under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, seeks to ensure that Section 7 loans do not encumber consumers with unaffordable loan payments for an extended period. As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the Bureau has found that consumers who reborrow generally reborrow for the same amount as the prior loan, rather than pay off a portion of the loan amount on the previous loan and reduce their debt burden. Given these borrowing patterns, an off-ramp, which began after a sequence of three loans, would delay the onset of the principal reduction and compel consumers to carry the burden of unaffordable payments for a longer period of time, raising the likelihood of default and collateral harms from making unaffordable loan payments.

Second, the Bureau believes that an off-ramp provision likely could not be designed in a way to ensure that consumers actually receive the off-ramp. As discussed in part II.B above, the Bureau's analysis of State regulator reports indicates that consumer use of available off-ramps has been limited. In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests that lenders discourage consumers from using State-imposed off-ramps. Consumers can obtain an off-ramp only if they request it or make statements indicating that they, for example, lack the ability to repay the loan. If lenders are able to induce or pressure consumers into repaying the third loan in a loan sequence made under proposed § 1041.7, the off-ramp provision would never be triggered. Consumers who repay the loan when they cannot afford to repay it may miss payments on other major financial obligations or forgo basic living expenses. Thus, the Bureau remains extremely concerned that an off-ramp would not, in fact, function as an important protection against the harms from unaffordable payments because it could be so easily circumvented.

Third, to make an off-ramp approach less susceptible to such defects, the Bureau continues to believe that additional provisions would be necessary, including disclosures alerting consumers to their rights to take the off-ramp and prohibitions on false or misleading information regarding off-ramp usage and collections activity prior to completion of the full loan sequence. These measures would be of uncertain effectiveness and would increase complexity, burdens on lenders, and challenges for enforcement and supervision. In contrast, the proposed principal reduction requirements would be much simpler: The principal of the first loan could be no greater than $500, and each successive loan in the loan sequence would have a principal amount that is reduced by at least one-third. The Bureau believes this approach would both provide greater protection for consumers and offer easier compliance for lenders.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether the principal reduction requirements are appropriate under proposed § 1041.7; whether $500 is the appropriate principal limit for the first loan in the sequence; and whether a one-third reduction for each loan made under proposed § 1041.7 over the course of a three-loan sequence is the appropriate principal reduction amount and appropriate length for a loan sequence. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether the proposed principal reduction requirements would conflict with any State, local, or tribal laws and regulations. The Bureau separately seeks comment on whether, in lieu of the principal reduction requirements, the Bureau should adopt an off-ramp approach and, if so, what specific features should be included. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether it should adopt the same parameters discussed in the Small Business Review Panel Outline—a cost-free extension of the third loan in the sequence over four installments—and additional measures to prevent lenders from discouraging usage of the off-ramp, such as a disclosure requirement, restrictions on collections activity prior to offering an off-ramp during a loan sequence, and prohibitions on false and misleading statements regarding consumers' use of the off-ramp. The Bureau seeks comment on whether there are other approaches that could encourage the use of an off-ramp. The Bureau also seeks comment generally on whether an off-ramp could be structured in a way that is relatively simple for compliance but still ensures that it would be made available to all consumers who qualify for it.

7(b)(2)

The Bureau expects that a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7 would generally involve a single payment structure, consistent with industry practice today. The Bureau also expects that the principal reduction would typically be achieved via a sequence of single-payment loans each for progressively smaller amounts. Proposed § 1041.7(b)(2), however, would provide certain safeguards in the event that a lender chose to structure the loan with multiple payments, such as a 45-day loan with three required payments. Under the proposed requirement, the loan must have payments that are substantially equal in amount, fall due in substantially equal intervals, and amortize completely during the term of the loan. The proposed requirements under § 1041.7(b)(2) are consistent with the requirements for covered longer-term loans that are made under proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12, the two conditional exemptions to proposed §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10 and 1041.15 for covered longer-term loans. Proposed comment 7(b)(2)-1 provides an example of a loan with an interest-only payment followed by a balloon payment, which would not satisfy the loan structure requirement under proposed § 1041.7(b)(2).

The requirement under proposed § 1041.7(b)(2) is intended to address covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.7 that are structured to have multiple payments. Absent the requirements in proposed § 1041.7(b)(2), the Bureau is concerned that lenders could structure loans to pair multiple interest-only payments with a significantly larger payment of the principal amount at the end of the loan term. The Bureau believes that consumers are better able to manage repayment obligations for payments that are due with reasonable frequency, in substantially equal amounts, and within substantially equal intervals. The Bureau believes that, in the absence of an ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, multi-payment loans with a final balloon payment are much more likely to trigger default and up to two reborrowings than comparable loans with amortizing payments. In the comparable context of longer-term vehicle title installment loans, for example, the Bureau has found that loans with final balloon payments are associated with much higher rates of default, compared to loans with fully amortizing payments. Furthermore, the balloon payment at the loans' maturity date appears to trigger significant reborrowing activity.

The Small Business Review Panel Outline indicated that the Bureau was considering whether the alternative requirements for covered short-term loans should prohibit a lender from charging more than one finance charge for the duration of the loan. The Bureau did not receive feedback from the SERs regarding the specific requirement. Proposed § 1041.7(b)(2) would differ from the Small Business Review Panel Outline because it would require Section 7 loans with multiple payments to have payments that are substantially equal in amount, fall due within substantially equal intervals, and amortize completely during the term of the loan.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether lenders would make covered short-term loans with multiple payments under proposed § 1041.7. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether the requirement under proposed § 1041.7(b)(2) is appropriate and on whether any additional requirements are appropriate with respect to multi-payment loans made under proposed § 1041.7. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether any alternative approaches would protect consumers from the harms of multi-payment, covered short-term loans with balloon payments. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether proposed § 1041.7 should permit only single-payment covered short-term loans.

7(b)(3)

Proposed § 1041.7(b)(3) would prohibit a lender, as a condition of making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7, from obtaining vehicle security, as defined in proposed § 1041.3(d). A lender seeking to make a covered short-term loan with vehicle security would have to make an ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. Proposed comment 7(b)(3)-1 clarifies this prohibition on a lender obtaining vehicle security on a Section 7 loan.

The Bureau is proposing this requirement because the Bureau is concerned that some consumers obtaining a loan under proposed § 1041.7 would not be able to afford the payments required to pay down the principal over a sequence of three loans. Allowing lenders to obtain vehicle security in connection with such loans could substantially increase the harm to such consumers by putting their vehicle at risk. The proposed requirement would protect consumers from default harms, collateral harms from making unaffordable loan payments, and reborrowing harms on covered short-term vehicle title loans. First, the Bureau is particularly concerned about default that could result in the loss of the consumer's vehicle. The Bureau has found sequences of short-term vehicle title loans are more likely to end in default than sequences of payday loans, and that 20 percent of loan sequences of single-payment vehicle title loans result in repossession of the consumer's vehicle. A consumer's vehicle may be essential for the consumer to travel to and from work, school, and medical appointments. The vehicle is likely also one of the consumer's most valuable economic assets. Second, due to the potentially serious consequences of defaulting on vehicle title loans, the Bureau is concerned that consumers may take extraordinary measures to repay vehicle title loans and, as a result, fail to meet other major financial obligations or basic living expenses. Third, even with the other protections against reborrowing in proposed § 1041.7, the Bureau is concerned that, due to the serious consequences of defaulting on vehicle title loans, consumers may feel pressure to reborrow up to twice on unaffordable vehicle title loans.

Furthermore, the Bureau believes proposed § 1041.7(b)(3) is necessary to restrict lenders' incentives to make Section 7 loans with unaffordable payments. Because loan sequences would be limited to a maximum of three Section 7 loans under proposed § 1041.7(c)(3) and subject to principal reduction under § 1041.7(b)(1), the Bureau believes a lender that makes Section 7 loans would have a strong incentive to underwrite effectively, even without having to comply with the specific requirements in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. However, with vehicle title loans, in which the lender obtains security interest in an asset of significantly greater value than the principal amount on the loan, the Bureau is concerned that a lender would have much less incentive to evaluate the consumer's ability to repay. The lender could repossess the vehicle if the loan were not repaid in full, even after the first loan in the sequence.

While Section 7 loans with vehicle security would be prohibited, the Bureau notes that there would be alternatives available to consumers and lenders. Lenders could make covered short-term loans with vehicle security that comply with the ability-to-repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. In addition, many lenders could offer covered longer-term loans with vehicle security that comply with the ability-to-repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10. Lenders may, in fact, be able to recoup the costs of an ability-to-repay determination more easily for a covered longer-term loan than for a covered short-term loan of comparable amount. Furthermore, in most States that permit short-term vehicle title loans, payday lending is also permitted. Accordingly, lenders could offer Section 7 loans if they decide such an alternative (including satisfying additional State licensing requirements where applicable) is advantageous.

The Bureau included this requirement in the Small Business Review Panel Outline. During the SBREFA process, the Bureau received feedback from a SER that is a vehicle title lender questioning the need for this requirement and urging the Bureau to consider permitting vehicle title loans to be made under the alternative requirements for covered short-term loans. The Bureau has considered this feedback but, as described above, the Bureau remains concerned that the harms from unaffordable payments on covered short-term loans with vehicle security may be especially severe for consumers. In light of these concerns, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to prohibit lenders, as a condition of making covered short-term loans under the conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.7, from obtaining vehicle security.

The Bureau seeks comment on the protective benefits of this proposed prohibition. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether there are alternative approaches that could allow vehicle title lending under the proposed conditional exemption for certain covered short-term loans and still provide strong protections against the harms that can result to consumers who lack the ability to repay their loans, including default and potential loss of the consumer's vehicle, collateral harms from making unaffordable loan payments, and reborrowing.

7(b)(4)

Proposed § 1041.7(b)(4) would provide that, as a requirement of making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7, the loan must not be structured as an open-end loan. Proposed comment 7(b)(4)-1 clarifies this prohibition on a lender structuring a Section 7 loan as an open-end loan.

The Bureau is concerned that permitting open-end loans under proposed § 1041.7 would present significant risks to consumers, as consumers could repeatedly draw down credit without the lender ever determining the consumer's ability to repay. In practice, consumers could reborrow serially on a single Section 7 loan structured as an open-end loan. These consumers would not receive the important protections in proposed § 1041.7, including the ability to gradually reduce their debt burden over the course of a sequence of three Section 7 loans. The Bureau also believes that attempting to develop restrictions for open-end loans in proposed § 1041.7 would add undue complexity without providing appreciable benefit for consumers.

The Small Business Review Panel Outline did not include this requirement as part of the proposed alternative requirements for covered short-term loans. Based on further consideration, the Bureau believes this requirement is necessary for the reasons described above. The Bureau seeks comment on whether proposed § 1041.7 should include this requirement and whether lenders, in the absence of this requirement, would make covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7 that are structured as open-end loans.

7(c) Borrowing History Requirements

Proposed § 1041.7(c) would require the lender to determine that the borrowing history requirements under proposed § 1041.7(c) are satisfied before making a Section 7 loan.

In conjunction with the other requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.7, the borrowing history requirements under proposed § 1041.7(c) are intended to prevent consumers from falling into long-term cycles of reborrowing and diminish the likelihood that consumers would experience harms during shorter loan sequences.

7(c)(1)

Proposed § 1041.7(c)(1) would require the lender to examine the consumer's borrowing history to ensure that it does not make a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7 when certain types of covered loans are outstanding. Specifically, it would provide that, as a requirement of making a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7, the lender must determine that the consumer does not have a covered loan outstanding made under proposed § 1041.5, proposed § 1041.7, or proposed § 1041.9, not including a loan made under proposed § 1041.7 that the same lender seeks to roll over.

Proposed comment 7(c)(1)-1 clarifies the meaning of this restriction and provides a cross-reference to the definition of outstanding loan in proposed § 1041.2(a)(15). Proposed comment 7(c)(1)-2 explains that the restriction in proposed § 1041.7(c)(1) does not apply to an outstanding loan made by the same lender or an affiliate under proposed § 1041.7 that is being rolled over.

The Bureau is proposing § 1041.7(c)(1) because it is concerned that consumers who have a covered loan outstanding made under proposed § 1041.5, proposed § 1041.7, or proposed § 1041.9 and seek a new, concurrent covered short-term loan may be struggling to repay the outstanding loan. These consumers may be seeking the new loan to retire the outstanding loan or to cover major financial obligations or basic living expenses that they cannot afford if they make one or more payments on the outstanding loan. In the absence of an ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, however, the lender would not determine whether the new loan would cause the consumer to fall deeper into a financial hole and suffer additional reborrowing, default, or collateral harms from making unaffordable loan payments. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that making a loan without an ability-to-repay determination under proposed § 1041.7 would be inappropriate given the borrower's circumstances.

The Bureau has addressed comparable concerns about concurrent outstanding loans in the context of covered short-term loans made under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6, in two ways. First, the lender would be required to obtain information about current debt obligations (a subset of major financial obligations) under proposed § 1041.5(c) and to account for it as part of its ability-to-repay determination for any new loan. Second, a new, concurrent loan would be considered the second loan in the loan sequence of consecutive covered short-term loans and thereby would trigger the presumption of unaffordability for a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.6(b)(1), unless the exception under proposed § 1041.6(b)(2) applies. Covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.7 would not have these means of accounting for the outstanding debt. As a result, the Bureau believes the requirement under proposed § 1041.7(c)(1) would ensure that consumers, who already have a covered loan outstanding made under § 1041.5, § 1041.7, or § 1041.9, would not increase their total debt burden and suffer additional harms from unaffordable loan payments on a new loan under proposed § 1041.7.

One outside study examined a dataset with millions of payday loans and found that approximately 15 to 25 percent of these loans are taken out while another loan is outstanding. The Bureau believes that this finding indicates that concurrent borrowing occurs frequently enough to warrant concern and that, without this proposed requirement, consumers could routinely take out concurrent covered short-term loans not subject to the proposed ability-to-repay determination and suffer harms as a result.

For the proposed alternative set of requirements for covered short-term loans, the Small Business Review Panel Outline required that the consumer have no covered loans outstanding. The Bureau received little feedback from the SERs or other industry stakeholders on this provision during the SBREFA process and general outreach. The Bureau notes that proposed § 1041.7(c)(1) differs from the Small Business Review Panel Outline because it would not apply to outstanding covered longer-term loans made under proposed § 1041.11 and § 1041.12. Upon further consideration, the Bureau believes that it is unlikely that consumers would move from one of those loans to a short-term alternative loan under proposed § 1041.7 in the first instance. In contrast, the Bureau believes that it is important to apply this proposed requirement to covered loans subjected to the ability to repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 and proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 to ensure that lenders do not use combinations of different kinds of loans to try to evade the safeguards against loans with unaffordable payments in proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.10.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether the requirement under proposed § 1041.7(c)(1) is appropriate. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether the requirement under proposed § 1041.7(c)(1) should apply to covered loans outstanding made under proposed § 1041.11 or § 1041.12. The Bureau further seeks comment on whether there are alternative approaches to the proposed requirement that would still protect consumers against the potential harms from taking concurrent loans.

7(c)(2)

Proposed § 1041.7(c)(2) would require that, prior to making a covered short-term loan under § 1041.7, the lender determine that the consumer has not had in the past 30 days an outstanding loan that was either a covered short-term loan (as defined in § 1041.2(a)(6)) made under proposed § 1041.5 or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan (as defined in § 1041.2(a)(7)) made under proposed § 1041.9. The requirement under proposed § 1041.7(c)(2) would prevent a consumer from obtaining a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7 soon after repaying a covered short-term made under proposed § 1041.5 or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made under proposed § 1041.9. Proposed comment 7(c)(2)-1 explains that this requirement would apply regardless of whether the prior loan was made by the same lender, an affiliate of the lender, or an unaffiliated lender. The proposed comment also provides an illustrative example.

Much as with proposed § 1041.7(c)(1) as discussed above, proposed § 1041.7(c)(2) would protect consumers, who lack the ability to repay a current or recent covered short-term or balloon-payment loan, from the harms of a covered short-term loan made without an ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. As explained in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, the Bureau believes that such reborrowing frequently reflects the adverse budgetary effects of the prior loan and the unaffordability of the new loan. Indeed, for that reason, the Bureau is proposing to create a presumption of unaffordability for a covered short-term loans subject to the ability-to-repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. This presumption would be undermined if consumers, who would be precluded from reborrowing by the presumption under proposed § 1041.6, could simply transition to covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.7.

Moreover, permitting a consumer to transition from a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.5 or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made under proposed § 1041.9 to a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 would be inconsistent with the basic purpose of proposed § 1041.7. As previously noted, proposed § 1041.7 creates an alternative to the ability-to-pay requirements under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 and features carefully structured consumer protections. If lenders were permitted to make a Section 7 loan shortly after making a covered short-term under proposed § 1041.5 or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan under proposed § 1041.9, it would be very difficult to apply all of the requirements under proposed § 1041.7 that are designed to protect consumers. As noted, proposed § 1041.7(b)(1)(i) would require that the first loan in a loan sequence of Section 7 loans have a principal amount no greater than $500, and proposed § 1041.7(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) would impose principal reduction requirements for additional Section 7 loans that are part of the same loan sequence. If a consumer were permitted to transition from a covered short-term or balloon-payment loan made under proposed § 1041.5 to a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7, the principal reduction requirements under proposed § 1041.7(b)(1) would be undermined.

The Bureau also believes providing separate paths for covered short-term loans that are made under the ability-to-repay framework in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 and under the framework in proposed § 1041.7 would make the rule's application more consistent across provisions and also simpler for both consumers and lenders. These two proposed frameworks would work in tandem to ensure that lenders could not transition consumers back and forth between covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.5 and under proposed § 1041.7. Furthermore, with these proposed provisions in place, consumers and lenders would have clear expectations of the types of covered short-term loans that could be made if the consumer were to reborrow.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether this requirement is appropriate. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether there are alternative approaches that would allow consumers to receive covered short-term loans made under both proposed § 1041.5 and proposed § 1041.7 in a loan sequence and still maintain the integrity of the consumer protections under the two proposed sections.

7(c)(3)

Proposed § 1041.7(c)(3) would provide that a lender cannot make a covered short-term loan under § 1041.7 if the loan would result in the consumer having a loan sequence of more than three Section 7 loans made by any lender. Proposed comment 7(c)(3)-1 clarifies that this requirement applies regardless of whether any or all of the loans in the loan sequence are made by the same lender, an affiliate, or unaffiliated lenders and explains that loans that are rollovers count toward the sequence limitation. Proposed comment 7(c)(3)-1 includes an example.

The Bureau is proposing § 1041.7(c)(3) for several reasons. First, the limitation on the length of loan sequences is aimed at preventing further harms from reborrowing. As discussed in the Supplemental Findings on Payday Loans, Deposit Advance Products, and Vehicle Title Loans, the Bureau found that 66 percent of loan sequences that reach a fourth loan end up having at least seven loans, and 47 percent of loan sequences that reach a fourth loan end up having at least 10 loans. Second, the Bureau believes that a three-loan limit would be consistent with evidence presented in the Supplemental Findings on Payday Loans, Deposit Advance Products, and Vehicle Title Loans, noted above, that approximately 38 percent of new loan sequences end by the third loan without default. Third, a three-loan limit would work in tandem with the principal restrictions in proposed § 1041.7(b)(1) to allow consumers to repay a covered short-term loan in manageable one-third increments over a loan sequence. Fourth, a three-loan limit would align with proposed § 1041.6(f), which would prohibit a lender from making another short-term covered loan after the third loan in a sequence of covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.5. Fifth, the Bureau believes that a three-loan limit would provide lenders with a strong incentive to evaluate the consumer's ability to repay before making Section 7 loans, albeit without complying with the specific ability-to-repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6.

The Small Business Review Panel Outline stated that the Bureau was considering a proposal to limit the length of a loan sequence of covered short-term loans made under the alternative requirements for covered short-term loans. The Bureau received feedback during the SBREFA process from small lenders that the sequence limitations would significantly reduce their revenue. During the SBREFA process and the Bureau's general outreach following the Bureau's release of the Small Business Review Panel Outline, many lenders and other industry stakeholders argued that the alternative requirements for covered short-term loans presented in the Small Business Review Panel Outline did not provide sufficient flexibility. As noted above, a group of SERs submitted a report projecting significantly lower revenue and profits for small lenders if they originated loans solely under the alternative approach. The Small Business Review Panel Report recommended that the Bureau request comment on whether permitting more than three loans under these requirements would enable the Bureau to satisfy its stated objectives for this rulemaking while reducing the revenue impact on small entities making covered short-term loans.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether the requirement under proposed § 1041.7(c)(3) is appropriate and also whether three covered short-term loans is the appropriate number for the limitation on the length of a loan sequence under proposed § 1041.7(c)(3). The Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether, given the principal reduction requirement for the second and third loans made under proposed § 1041.7, a four-loan sequence limit, with a 25 percent step down for each loan would be more affordable for consumers than loans made under a three-loan limit with a 33 percent step down. Moreover, consistent with the Small Business Review Panel recommendation, the Bureau seeks comment on whether permitting a loan sequence of more than three Section 7 loans would enable the Bureau to satisfy its stated objectives for the proposed rulemaking while reducing the impact on small entities making covered short-term loans.

7(c)(4)

Proposed § 1041.7(c)(4) would require that a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 not result in the consumer having more than six covered short-term loans outstanding during any consecutive 12-month period (also referred to as the “Section 7 loan limit”) or having covered short-term loans outstanding for an aggregate period of more than 90 days during any consecutive 12-month period (also referred to as the “Section 7 indebtedness limit”). The lender would have to determine whether any covered short-term loans were outstanding during the consecutive 12-month period. If a consumer obtained a covered short-term loan prior to the consecutive 12-month period and was obligated on the loan during part of the consecutive 12-month period, this loan and the time in which it was outstanding during the consecutive 12-month period would count toward the Section 7 loan and Section 7 indebtedness limits.

Proposed comment 7(c)(4)-1 explains the meaning of consecutive 12-month period as used in proposed § 1041.7(c)(4). The proposed comment clarifies that a consecutive 12-month period begins on the date that is 12 months prior to the proposed contractual due date of the new Section 7 loan and ends on the proposed contractual due date. Proposed comment 7(c)(4)-1 explains further that the lender would have to obtain information about the consumer's borrowing history on covered short-term loans for the 12 months preceding the proposed contractual due date on that loan. Proposed comment 7(c)(4)-1 also provides an example.

Under proposed § 1041.7(c)(4), the lender would have to count the proposed new loan toward the Section 7 loan limit and count the anticipated contractual duration of the new loan toward the Section 7 indebtedness limit. Because the new loan and its proposed contractual duration would count toward these limits, the lookback period would not start at the consummation date of the new loan. Instead, the lookback period would start at the proposed contractual due date of the final payment on the new loan and consider the full 12 months immediately preceding this date.

As a general matter, the Bureau is concerned about consumers' frequent use of covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.7 for which lenders are not required to determine consumers' ability to repay. The frequent use of covered short-term loans that do not require an ability-to-repay determination may be a signal that consumers are struggling to repay such loans without reborrowing. For purposes of determining whether the making of a loan would satisfy the Section 7 loan and Section 7 indebtedness limits under proposed § 1041.7(c)(4), the lender would also have to count covered short-term loans made under both proposed § 1041.5 and proposed § 1041.7. Although loans made under proposed § 1041.5 would require the lender to make a reasonable determination of a consumer's ability to repay, the consumer's decision to seek a Section 7 loan, after previously obtaining a covered short-term loan based on an ability-to-repay determination, suggests that the consumer may now lack the ability to repay the loan and that an earlier ability-to-repay determination may not have fully captured this particular consumer's expenses or obligations. Under proposed § 1041.7(c)(4), consumers could receive up to six Section 7 loans and accrue up to 90 days of indebtedness on Section 7 loans, assuming the consumer did not also have any covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.5 during the same time period. Because the duration of covered short-term loans are typically tied to how frequently a consumer receives income, the Bureau believes that the two overlapping proposed requirements are necessary to provide more complete protections for consumers.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether the number of and period of indebtedness on covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.5 should count toward the Section 7 loan and Section 7 indebtedness limits, respectively. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether there are alternative approaches that would address the Bureau's concerns about a high number of and long aggregate period of indebtedness on covered short-term loans made without the ability-to-repay determination under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether proposed § 1041.7(c)(4) should count loans with a term that partly fell in the 12-month period toward the Section 7 loan and Section 7 indebtedness limits or alternatively should count only covered short-term loans that were consummated during the consecutive 12-month period toward the Section 7 loan and Section 7 indebtedness limits.

7(c)(4)(i)

Proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(i) would require that a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 not result in the consumer having more than six covered short-term loans outstanding during any consecutive 12-month period. This proposed requirement would impose a limit on the total number of Section 7 loans during a consecutive 12-month period.

Proposed comment 7(c)(4)(i)-1 explains certain aspects of proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(i) relating to the Section 7 loan limit. Proposed comment 7(c)(4)(i)-1 clarifies that, in addition to the new loan, all covered short-term loans made under either proposed § 1041.5 or proposed § 1041.7 that were outstanding during the consecutive 12-month period count toward the Section 7 loan limit. Proposed comment 7(c)(4)(i)-1 also clarifies that, under proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(i), a lender may make a loan that when aggregated with prior covered short-term loans would satisfy the Section 7 loan limit even if proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(i) would prohibit the consumer from obtaining one or two subsequent loans in the sequence. Proposed comment 7(c)(4)(i)-2 gives examples.

The Bureau believes that a consumer who seeks to take out a new covered short-term loan after having taken out six covered short-term loans during a consecutive 12-month period may be exhibiting an inability to repay such loans. If a consumer is seeking a seventh covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7 in a consecutive 12-month period, this consumer may, in fact, be using covered short-term loans to cover regular expenses and compensate for chronic income shortfalls, rather than to cover an emergency or other non-recurring need. Under these circumstances, the Bureau believes that the lender should make an ability-to-repay determination in accordance with proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 before making additional covered short-term loans and ensure that the payments on any subsequent loan are affordable for the consumer. If the consumer were found to be ineligible for a covered short-term loan following the ability-to-repay determination, this would suggest that the Section 7 loan limit was having its intended effect and that the consumer would not be able to afford another Section 7 loan.

The specific limit of six Section 7 loans in a consecutive twelve-month period in proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(i) is also informed by the decisions of Federal prudential regulators and two States that have directly or indirectly set limits on the total number of certain covered short-term loans a consumer can obtain during a prescribed time period. As described in part II.B above, the FDIC and the OCC in late 2013 issued supervisory guidance on DAP (FDIC DAP Guidance and OCC DAP Guidance, respectively). The OCC DAP Guidance and FDIC DAP Guidance set the supervisory expectation that regulated banks require each deposit advance to be repaid in full before the extension of a subsequent advance, offer no more than one deposit advance loan per monthly statement cycle, and impose a cooling-off period of at least one monthly statement cycle after the repayment of a deposit advance. Taken collectively, these guidelines established the supervisory norm that institutions regulated by the FDIC or OCC should make no more than six deposit advances per year to a customer.

Two States have also placed a cap on the number of covered short-term loans a consumer can receive in a year. In 2010, Washington State enacted an annual loan cap that restricts the number of loans a consumer may receive from all lenders to a maximum of eight in a 12-month period. Delaware implemented a cap of five loans in any 12-month period in 2013.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether it is appropriate to establish a Section 7 loan limit. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether six covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.7 is the appropriate Section 7 loan limit or whether a smaller or larger number should be considered by the Bureau. The Bureau also seeks comment on the impact of the Section 7 loan limit on small entities.

7(c)(4)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(ii) would require that a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 not result in the consumer having covered short-term loans outstanding for an aggregate period of more than 90 days during any consecutive 12-month period. This proposed requirement would limit the consumer's aggregate period of indebtedness on such loans during a consecutive 12-month period.

Proposed comment 7(c)(4)(ii)-1 clarifies certain aspects of proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(ii) relating to the Section 7 indebtedness limit. Proposed comment 7(c)(4)(ii)-1 explains that, in addition to the new loan, the time period in which all covered short-term loans made under either § 1041.5 or § 1041.7 were outstanding during the consecutive 12-month period count toward the Section 7 indebtedness limit. Proposed comment 7(c)(4)(ii)-1 also clarifies that, under proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(ii), a lender may make a loan with a proposed contractual duration, which when aggregated with the time outstanding of prior covered short-term loans, would satisfy the Section 7 indebtedness limit even if proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(ii) would prohibit the consumer from obtaining one or two subsequent loans in the sequence. Proposed comment 7(c)(4)(ii)-2 gives examples.

The Bureau believes it is important to complement the proposed six-loan limit with the proposed 90-day indebtedness limit in light of the fact that loan durations may vary under proposed § 1041.7. For the typical two-week payday loan, the two thresholds would reach the same result, since a limit of six-loans under proposed § 1041.7 means that the consumer can be in debt on such loans for up to approximately 90 days per year or one quarter of the year. For 30- or 45-day loans, however, a six-loan limit would mean that the consumer could be in debt for 180 days or 270 days out of a 12-month period. This result would be inconsistent with protecting consumers from the harms associated with long cycles of indebtedness.

Given the income profile and borrowing patterns of consumers who borrow monthly, the Bureau believes the proposed Section 7 indebtedness limit is an important protection for these consumers. Consumers who receive 30-day payday loans are more likely to live on fixed incomes, typically Social Security. Fifty-eight percent of monthly borrowers were identified as recipients of government benefits in the Bureau's 2014 Data Point. These borrowers are particularly vulnerable to default and collateral harms from making unaffordable loan payments. The Bureau has found that borrowers receiving public benefits are more highly concentrated toward the lower end of the income range. Nearly 90 percent of borrowers receiving public benefits reported annual incomes of less than $20,000, whereas less than 30 percent of employed borrowers reported annual incomes of less than $20,000. Furthermore, because public benefits are typically fixed and do not vary from month to month, in contrast to wage income that is often tied to the number of hours worked in a pay period, the Bureau believes monthly borrowers are more likely than biweekly borrowers to use covered short-term loans to compensate for a chronic income shortfall rather than to cover an emergency or other non-recurring need.

The Bureau has found that borrowers on fixed incomes are especially likely to struggle with repayments and face the burden of unaffordable loan payments for an extended period of time. As noted in the Supplemental Findings on Payday Loans, Deposit Advance Products, and Vehicle Title Loans, for loans taken out by consumers who are paid monthly, more than 40 percent of all loans to these borrowers were in sequences that, once begun, persisted for the rest of the year for which data were available. The Bureau also found that approximately 20 percent of borrowers paid monthly averaged at least one loan per pay period.

In light of these considerations, the Bureau believes that a consumer who has been in debt for more than 90 days on covered short-term loans, made under either proposed § 1041.5 or proposed § 1041.7, during a consecutive 12-month period may be exhibiting an inability to repay such loans. If a consumer is seeking a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7 that would result in a total period of indebtedness on covered short-term loans of greater than 90 days in a consecutive 12-month period, this consumer may, in fact, be using covered short-term loans to cover regular expenses and compensate for chronic income shortfalls, rather than to cover an emergency or other non-recurring need. Under these circumstances, the Bureau believes that the lender should make an ability-to-repay determination in accordance with proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6 before making additional covered short-term loans and ensure that the payments on any subsequent loan are affordable for the consumer. If the consumer were found to be ineligible for a covered short-term loan following the ability-to-repay determination, this would suggest that the Section 7 indebtedness limit was having its intended effect and that the consumer would not be able to afford another Section 7 loan.

Proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(ii) is also consistent with the policy choice embodied in the FDIC's 2005 supervisory guidance on payday lending. The FDIC recommended limits on the total time of indebtedness during a consecutive 12-month period. Among other guidelines, the FDIC advised that:

Depository institutions should ensure that payday loans are not provided to customers who had payday loans outstanding at any lender for a total of three months during the previous 12 months. When calculating the three-month period, institutions should consider the customers' total use of payday loans at all lenders. When a customer has used payday loans more than three months in the past 12 months, institutions should offer the customer, or refer the customer to, an alternative longer-term credit product that more appropriately suits the customer's needs. Whether or not an institution is able to provide a customer alternative credit products, an extension of a payday loan is not appropriate under such circumstances.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether it is appropriate to establish a Section 7 indebtedness limit. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether 90 days of Section 7 indebtedness is the appropriate period for the Section 7 indebtedness limit or whether a shorter or longer period of time should be considered by the Bureau. Furthermore, consistent with the Small Business Review Panel recommendation, the Bureau seeks comment on whether a period of indebtedness longer than 90 days per consecutive 12-month period would permit the Bureau to fulfill its objectives for the rulemaking while reducing the revenue impact on small entities. The Bureau also seeks comment on the interplay between the proposed definition of outstanding loan and the requirement under proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(ii). In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether contractual indebtedness should be the standard by which a covered short-term loan's duration is measured for purposes of the Section 7 indebtedness limit in proposed § 1041.7(c)(4)(ii).

7(d) Determining Period Between Consecutive Covered Short-Term Loans Made Under the Conditional Exemption

Under proposed § 1041.7(d), if a lender or an affiliate makes a non-covered bridge loan during the time any covered short-term loan made by a lender or an affiliate under proposed § 1041.7 is outstanding and for 30 days thereafter, the lender or an affiliate must modify its determination of loan sequence for the purpose of making a subsequent Section 7 loan. Specifically, the lender or an affiliate must not count the days during which the non-covered bridge loan is outstanding in determining whether a subsequent Section 7 loan made by the lender or an affiliate is part of the same loan sequence as the prior Section 7 loan.

Proposed comment 7(d)-1 provides a cross-reference to proposed § 1041.2(a)(13) for the definition of non-covered bridge loan. Proposed comment 7(d)-2 clarifies that proposed § 1041.7(d) provides for certain rules for determining whether a loan is part of a loan sequence when a lender or an affiliate makes both covered short-term loans under § 1041.7 and a non-covered bridge loan in close succession. Proposed comment 7(d)-3 provides an illustrative example.

The Bureau believes that proposed § 1041.7(d) would maintain the integrity of a core protection in proposed § 1041.7(b). If a lender could make a non-covered bridge loan to keep a consumer in debt and reset a consumer's loan sequence after 30 days, it could make a lengthy series of $500 covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7 and evade the principal stepdown requirements in proposed § 1041.7(b)(1). In the absence of this proposed restriction, a consumer could experience an extended period of indebtedness after taking out a combination of covered short-term loans under § 1041.7 and non-covered bridge loans and not have the ability to gradually pay off the debt obligation by means of the principal reduction requirement in proposed § 1041.7(b)(1). Proposed § 1041.7(d) parallels the restriction in proposed § 1041.6(h) applicable to covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.5.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether this proposed restriction is appropriate. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether lenders would anticipate making covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7 and non-covered bridge loans to consumers close in time to one another, if permitted to do so under a final rule.

7(e) Disclosures

Proposed § 1041.7(e) would require a lender to provide disclosures before making the first and third loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans. Proposed comment 7(e)-1 clarifies the proposed disclosure requirements.

The disclosures are designed to provide consumers with key information about how the principal amounts and the number of loans in a loan sequence would be limited for covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.7 before they take out their first and third loans in a sequence. The Bureau developed model forms for the proposed disclosures through consumer testing. The notices in proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) and § 1041.7(e)(2)(ii) would have to be substantially similar to the model forms. Proposed § 1041.7(e) would require a lender to provide the notices required under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) and § 1041.7(e)(2)(ii) before the consummation of a loan. Proposed comment 7(e)-1 explains the proposed disclosure requirements.

The Bureau believes that the proposed disclosures would help inform consumers of the features of Section 7 loans in such a manner as to make the costs, benefits, and risks clear. The Bureau believes that the proposed disclosures would, consistent with Dodd-Frank section 1032(a), ensure that these costs, benefits, and risks are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers. In the absence of the proposed disclosures, the Bureau is concerned that consumers are less likely to appreciate the risk of taking a loan with mandated principal reductions or understand the proposed restrictions on Section 7 loans that are designed to protect consumers from the harms of unaffordable loan payments.

The Bureau believes that it is important for consumers to receive the proposed notices before they are contractually obligated on a Section 7 loan. By receiving the proposed notices before consummation, a consumer can make a more fully informed decision, with an awareness of the features of a Section 7 loan, including specifically the limits on taking additional Section 7 loans in the near future. The Bureau believes that some consumers, when informed of the restrictions on taking subsequent loans in a sequence of Section 7 loans, may opt not to take the loan. If the proposed notices only had to be provided after the loan has been consummated, however, consumers would be unable to use this information in deciding whether to obtain a Section 7 loan.

The Bureau seeks comment on the appropriateness of the proposed disclosures and whether they would effectively aid consumer understanding of Section 7 loans. Furthermore, the Bureau seeks comment on the specific elements in the proposed disclosures. The Bureau also seeks comment on the costs and burdens on lenders to provide the proposed disclosures to consumers.

7(e)(1) General Form of Disclosures

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1) would establish the form of disclosures that would be provided under proposed § 1041.7. The format requirements generally parallel the format requirements for disclosures related to payment transfers under proposed § 1041.15, as discussed below. Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(i) would require that the disclosures be clear and conspicuous. Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(ii) would require that the disclosures be in provided in writing or through electronic delivery. Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(iii) would require the disclosures to be provided in retainable form. Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(iv) would require the notices to be segregated from other items and to contain only the information in proposed § 1041.7(e)(2). Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(v) would require electronic notices to have machine readable text. Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(vi) would require the disclosures to be substantially similar to the model forms for the notices required under § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) and (ii).

7(e)(1)(i) Clear and Conspicuous

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(i) would provide that the disclosures required by § 1041.7 must be clear and conspicuous. The disclosures may use commonly accepted abbreviations that would be readily understandable by the consumer. Proposed comment 7(e)(1)(i)-1 clarifies that disclosures are clear and conspicuous if they are readily understandable and their location and type size are readily noticeable to consumers. This clear and conspicuous standard is based on the standard used in other consumer financial services laws and their implementing regulations, including Regulation E Subpart B (Remittance Transfers). Requiring that the disclosures be provided in a clear and conspicuous manner would aid consumer understanding of the information in the disclosure about the risks and restrictions on obtaining a sequence of covered short-term loans under § 1041.7, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Bureau seeks comment on this clear and conspicuous standard and whether it is appropriate for the proposed disclosures.

7(e)(1)(ii) In Writing or Electronic Delivery

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(ii) would require disclosures mandated by proposed § 1041.7(e) to be provided in writing or electronic delivery. The disclosures must be provided in a form that can be viewed on paper or a screen. This requirement cannot be satisfied by being provided orally or through a recorded message. Proposed comment 15(e)(1)(ii)-1 clarifies the meaning of this proposed requirement. Proposed comment 7(e)(1)(ii)-2 explains that the disclosures required by proposed § 1041.7(e) may be provided without regard to the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act) (15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.).

The Bureau is proposing to allow electronic delivery because electronic communications may be more convenient than paper communications for some lenders and consumers. In particular for Section 7 loans that are made online, requiring disclosures in paper form could introduce delay and additional costs into the process of making loans online, without providing appreciable improvements in consumer understanding.

The Bureau seeks comment on the benefits and risks to consumers of providing these disclosures through electronic delivery. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether electronic delivery should only be permitted for loans that are made online. Furthermore, the Bureau seeks comment on whether electronic delivery should be subject to additional requirements, including specific provisions of the E-Sign Act. The Bureau seeks comment on whether lenders should be subject to consumer consent requirements, similar to those in proposed § 1041.15(a)(4), when providing the disclosures electronically. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether it is feasible and appropriate to provide the disclosures by text message or mobile application. The Bureau also seeks comment on situations in which consumers would be provided with a paper notice. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on the burdens of providing these notices through paper and the utility of paper notices to consumers.

7(e)(1)(iii) Retainable

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(iii) would require disclosures mandated by proposed § 1041.7(e) to be provided in a retainable form. Proposed comment 7(e)(1)(iii)-1 explains that electronic disclosures are considered retainable if they are in a format that is capable of being printed, saved, or emailed by the consumer.

The Bureau believes that retainable disclosures are important to aid consumer understanding of the features and restrictions on obtaining a Section 7 loan at the time the consumer seeks the loan and as the consumer potentially progresses through a loan sequence. Requiring that disclosures be provided in this retainable form is consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act to prescribe rules to ensure that the features of a product over the term of the product are fully, accurate and effectively disclosed in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product. With retainable disclosures, consumers can review their content following the consummation of a Section 7 loan and during the course of a sequence of multiple Section 7 loans.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether to allow for an exception to the requirement that notices be retainable for text messages and messages within mobile applications and whether other requirements should be placed on electronic delivery methods, such as a requirement that the URL link stay active for a certain period of time or a short notice requirement similar to that required in proposed § 1041.15(c) and (e). The Bureau also seeks comment on whether the notices should warn consumers that they should save or print the full notice given that the URL link will not be maintained indefinitely.

7(e)(1)(iv) Segregation Requirements for Notices

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(iv) would require written, non-electronic notices provided under proposed § 1041.7(e) to be segregated from all other written materials and to contain only the information required by proposed § 1041.7(e), other than information necessary for product identification and branding. Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(iv) would require that electronic notices not have any additional content displayed above or below the content required by proposed § 1041.7(e), other than information necessary for product identification, branding, and navigation. Lenders would not be allowed to include additional substantive information in the notice. Proposed comment 7(e)(1)(iv)-1 explains how segregated additional content can be provided to a consumer.

In order to increase the likelihood that consumers would notice and read the written and electronic disclosures required by proposed § 1041.7(e), the Bureau is proposing that the notices be provided in a stand-alone format that is segregated from other lender communications. This requirement would ensure that the disclosure contents are effectively disclosed to consumers, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau believes that the addition of other items or the attachment of other documents could dilute the informational value of the required content by distracting consumers or overwhelming them with extraneous information.

The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed segregation requirements for notices, including whether they provide enough specificity. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether and how lenders currently segregate separate disclosures required under Federal or State law.

7(e)(1)(v) Machine Readable Text in Notices Provided Through Electronic Delivery

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(v) would require, if provided through electronic delivery, that the notices required by paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) must be in machine readable text that is accessible via both Web browsers and screen readers. Graphical representations of textual content cannot be accessed by assistive technology used by the blind and visually impaired. The Bureau believes that providing the electronically-delivered disclosures with machine readable text, rather than as a graphic image file, would help ensure that consumers with a variety of electronic devices and consumers that utilize screen readers, such as consumers with disabilities, can access the disclosure information.

The Bureau seeks comment on this requirement, including its benefits to consumers, the burden it would impose on lenders, and on how lenders currently format content delivered through a Web page.

7(e)(1)(vi) Model Forms

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(3) would require the notices under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2) to be substantially similar to the proposed Model Forms A-1 and A-2 in appendix A. Proposed comment 7(e)(1)(vi)-1 explains the safe harbor provided by the model forms, providing that although the use of the model forms and clauses is not required, lenders using them would be deemed to be in compliance with the disclosure requirement with respect to such model forms.

The Bureau seeks comment on the content and form of the proposed Model Forms A-1 and A-2 in appendix A.

7(e)(1)(vi)(A) First Loan Notice

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) would require the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) to be substantially similar to the proposed Model Form A-1 in appendix A.

Proposed Model Form A-1 was tested in two rounds. In Round 1, nearly all participants understood that this notice sought to inform them that subsequent Section 7 loans would have to be smaller than the first loan. For Round 2, the “30 days” language was rephrased and the “loan date” column in the table and the two line items for consumer initials were removed. Round 2 had results similar to Round 1. Participants understood the table listing maximum loan amounts and recognized that the notice sought to inform them that subsequent Section 7 loans would have to be smaller. Proposed Model Form A-1 is the notice tested in Round 2.

7(e)(1)(vi)(B) Third Loan Notice

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(ii) would require the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(ii) to be substantially similar to the proposed Model Form A-2 in appendix A.

Proposed Model Form A-2 was tested in one round. The majority of participants understood that they would not be allowed to take a fourth Section 7 loan for 30 days after the third Section 7 loan was repaid. Proposed Model Form A-2 is largely identical to the notice tested in Round 1 but has a few important differences. The prohibition on subsequent loan statement now refers to “a similar loan” instead of a “loan like this one” and “at least 30 days” instead of just “30 days.” It also no longer has the two line items for consumer initials.

7(e)(1)(vii) Foreign Language Disclosures

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(1)(vii) would allow lenders to provide the disclosures required by proposed § 1041.7(e) in a foreign language, provided that the disclosures must be made available in English upon the consumer's request.

The Bureau believes that, if a lender offers or services covered loans to a group of consumers in a foreign language, the lender should, at least, be allowed to provide disclosures that would be required under proposed § 1041.7(e) to those consumers in that language, so long as the lender also makes an English-language version available upon request from the consumer. This option would allow lenders to more effectively inform consumers who have limited or no proficiency in English of the risks of and restrictions on taking Section 7 loans.

The Bureau seeks comment in general on this foreign language requirement, including whether lenders should be required to obtain written consumer consent before providing the disclosures in proposed § 1041.7(e) in a language other than English and whether lenders should be required to provide the disclosure in English along with the foreign language disclosure. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether there are any circumstances in which lenders should be required to provide the disclosures in a foreign language and, if so, what circumstance should trigger such a requirement.

7(e)(2) Notice Requirements

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(2) would require a lender to provide notices to a consumer before making a first and third loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans. Proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) would require a lender before making the first loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans to provide a notice that warns the consumer not to take the loan if the consumer will be unable to repay the loan by the contractual due date and informs the consumer of the Federal restrictions on the maximum number of and maximum loan amount on subsequent Section 7 loans in a sequence. Proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(ii) would require a lender before making the third loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans to provide a notice that informs the consumer that the consumer will not be able to take another similar loan for at least 30 days. More generally, these proposed notices would help consumers understand the availability of Section 7 loans in the near future.

7(e)(2)(i) First Loan Notice

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) would require a lender before making the first loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans to provide a notice that warns the consumer of the risk of an unaffordable Section 7 loan and informs the consumer of the Federal restrictions governing subsequent Section 7 loans. Specifically, the proposed notice would warn the consumer not to take the loan if the consumer is unsure whether the consumer can repay the loan amount, which would include the principal and the finance charge, by the contractual due date. In addition, the proposed notice would inform the consumer, in text and tabular form, of the Federally required restriction, as applicable, on the number of subsequent loans and their respective amounts in a sequence of Section 7 loans. The proposed notice would have to contain the identifying statement “Notice of restrictions on future loans,” using that phrase. The other language in the proposed notice would have to be substantially similar to the language provided in proposed Model Form A-1 in appendix A. Proposed comment 7(e)(2)(i)-1 explains the “as applicable” standard for information and statements in the proposed notice. It states that, under § 1041.7(e)(2)(i), a lender would have to modify the notice when a consumer is not eligible for a sequence of three covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7.

The Bureau believes the proposed notice would ensure that certain features of Section 7 loan are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers in a manner that permits them to understand certain costs, benefits, and risks of such loans. Given that the restrictions on obtaining covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7 would be new and conceptually unfamiliar to many consumers, the Bureau believes that disclosing them is critical to ensuring that consumers understand the restriction on the number of and principal amount on subsequent loans in a sequence of Section 7 loans. The Bureau's consumer testing of the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) indicated that it aided consumer understanding of the proposed requirements on Section 7 loans. In contrast, the consumer testing of notices for covered short-term loans made under § 1041.5 indicated that these notices did not improve consumer understanding of the ability-to-repay requirements under proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. Since the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) would be provided in retainable form, the Bureau believes that the incremental informational value of providing the same or similar notice before the consummation of the second loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans would be limited.

The Bureau seeks comment on the content of the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) and whether the addition or deletion of any items would aid consumer understanding of the risks of and the restrictions on taking a Section 7 loan. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether a lender should be required to provide the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) before making a second loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans. Furthermore, consistent with the Small Business Review Panel recommendation, the Bureau seeks comment on ways to streamline information in the proposed notice and on methods of delivering the notice in a way that would reduce the burden on small lenders.

7(e)(2)(ii) Third Loan Notice

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(ii) would require a lender before making the third loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans to provide a notice that informs a consumer of the restrictions on the new and subsequent loans. Specifically, the proposed notice would state that the new Section 7 loan must be smaller than the consumer's prior two loans and that the consumer cannot take another similar loan for at least another 30 days after repaying the new loan. The language in this proposed notice must be substantially similar to the language provided in proposed Model Form A-2 in appendix A. The proposed notice would have to contain the identifying statement “Notice of borrowing limits on this loan and future loans,” using that phrase. The other language in this proposed notice would have to be substantially similar to the language provided in proposed Model Form A-2 in appendix A.

The Bureau believes the proposed notice is necessary to ensure that the restrictions on taking Section 7 loans are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers. Since several weeks or more may have elapsed since a consumer received the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i), this proposed notice would remind consumers of the prohibition on taking another similar loan for at least the next 30 days. Importantly, it would present this restriction more prominently than it is presented in the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i). The Bureau's consumer testing of the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(ii) indicated that it aided consumer understanding of the prohibition on taking a subsequent Section 7 loan.

The Bureau seeks comment on the informational benefits of the proposed notice for the third loan in a sequence of Section 7 loans. The Bureau seeks comment on the content of the notice under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(ii) and whether the addition or deletion of any items would aid consumer understanding of the restrictions attached to taking a Section 7 loan. Furthermore, consistent with the Small Business Review Panel recommendation, the Bureau seeks comment on ways to streamline information in the proposed notice and on methods of delivering the notice in a way that would reduce the burden on small lenders.

7(e)(3) Timing

Proposed § 1041.7(e)(3) would require a lender to provide the notices required under proposed § 1041.7(e)(2)(i) and 1041.7(e)(2)(ii) before the consummation of a loan. Proposed comment 7(e)(3)-1 explains that a lender can provide the proposed notices after a consumer has completed a loan application but before the consumer has signed the loan agreement. It further clarifies that a lender would not have to provide the notices to a consumer who merely inquires about a Section 7 loan but does not complete an application for this type of loan. Proposed comment 7(e)(3)-2 states that a lender must provide electronic notices, to the extent permitted by § 1041.7(e)(1)(ii), to the consumer before a Section 7 loan is consummated. It also offers an example of an electronic notice that would satisfy the timing requirement.

The Bureau believes that it is important for consumers to receive the proposed notices before they are contractually obligated on a Section 7 loan. By receiving the proposed notices before consummation, a consumer can make a more fully informed decision, with an awareness of the restrictions on the current loan and on additional Section 7 or similar loans in the near future. The Bureau believes that some consumers, when informed of the restrictions on taking subsequent loans in a sequence of Section 7 loans, may opt not to take the loan. If the proposed notices were provided after the loan has been consummated, however, consumers would be unable to use this information in deciding whether to obtain a Section 7 loan.

The Bureau seeks comment on the timing requirement under proposed § 1041.7(e)(3) and specifically whether the notices under proposed § 1041.7(e) should be provided earlier or later in the process of a consumer seeking and obtaining a Section 7 loan.

Subpart C—Longer-Term Loans

While Subpart B generally covers loans with a duration 45 days or less because of the unique risks to consumers posed by loans of such short duration, Subpart C addresses a subset of longer-term loans: Specifically, loans which are high priced (i.e., with an all-in cost of credit greater than 36 percent) and which are backed either by a leveraged payment mechanism or by vehicle security. As discussed above, the Bureau's focus on loans with a duration of 45 days or less is driven by a concern that for the liquidity-constrained consumers who find it necessary to seek such loans in the first place, such an accelerated repayment period makes it particularly likely that payments will exceed consumers' ability to repay. And when payments exceed a consumer's ability to repay, the consumer is likely to suffer very substantial harms, as described above. The Bureau observes that the characteristics of the longer-term loans addressed in this Subpart C also present a high risk that the loan payments will exceed the consumer's ability to repay and, in addition, then exacerbate the harms that consumers suffer when the payments are unaffordable. Accordingly, in proposed § 1041.8, the Bureau proposes to identify an unfair and abusive act or practice with respect to the making of such covered longer-term loans. In the Bureau's view, it appears to be both unfair and abusive for a lender to make such a loan without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. To avoid engaging in this unfair and abusive act or practice, a lender would have to reasonably determine that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan.

Proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 would establish a set of requirements to prevent the unlawful practice by requiring the lender to reasonably determine that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. The Bureau is proposing the ability-to-repay requirements under its authority to prescribe rules identifying as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices and in such rules to include requirements for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices. Proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12 would rely on section 1022(b)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act to exempt certain covered longer-term loans from the ability-to-repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10, as well as the prohibition in § 1041.8. Accordingly, lenders seeking to make covered longer-term loans would have the choice, on a case by case basis, either to follow proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10, proposed § 1041.11, or proposed § 1041.12.

The predicate for the proposed identification of an unfair and abusive act or practice in proposed § 1041.8—and thus for the prevention requirements contained in proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10—is a set of preliminary findings with respect to the consumers who use covered longer-term loans, and the impact on those consumers of the practice of making such loans without assessing the consumers' ability to repay. Those preliminary findings are set forth in the discussion below, hereinafter referred to as Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans. After laying out these preliminary findings, the Bureau sets forth its reasons for proposing to identify as unfair and abusive the act or practice described in proposed § 1041.8. The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of this subpart, including the intersection of the proposed interventions with existing State, tribal, and local laws and whether additional or alternative protections should be considered to address the core harms discussed below.

Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans

a. Overview

As discussed in part II.C, beginning in the 1990s, a number of States created carve-outs from their usury laws to permit single-payment payday loans at annualized rates of between 300 and 400 percent. In these States, such payday loans became the dominant lending product marketed to consumers who are facing liquidity shortfalls and have difficulty accessing the mainstream credit system.

More recently, especially with the advent of the internet, a number of lenders—including online lenders purporting to operate outside of the confines of State law—have introduced newer forms of liquidity loans. These include “hybrid payday loans,” which are high-cost loans with full repayment nominally due within a short period of time, but where rollover occurs automatically unless the consumer takes affirmative action to pay off the loan, thus effectively creating a series of interest-only payments followed by a final balloon payment of the principal amount and an additional fee. These newer forms of liquidity loans also include “payday installment loans,” which are high-cost installment loans where each succeeding payment is timed to coincide with the consumer's next inflow of cash and generally is automatically deducted from the consumer's bank account as the cash is received. Two States have expressly authorized payday installment loans and in other States the laws leave room for such loans. In these States, licensed storefront payday lenders have taken to making payday installment loans as well. Similarly, a number of States authorize vehicle title installment loans and in those States storefront title lenders are also making vehicle title installment loans.

Additional new forms of liquidity loans have developed in order to fall outside of the scope of existing regulatory regimes that applied narrowly to loans with particular durations or loan features. For example, some lenders developed high-cost, 92-day loans to avoid the usury cap for loans made to members of the armed forces and their dependents under the Military Lending Act, which previously applied to certain closed-end payday loans with durations of 91 days or less. Similarly, lenders have developed high-cost open-end credit products to avoid coverage of State regulatory regimes that apply only to closed-end loans.

Some payday installment loans and vehicle title loans include a built-in balloon payment, typically as the final payment due following a series of smaller (often interest-only) payments, requiring the principal to be repaid in full at one time. Unsurprisingly, consumers find making such a payment as challenging as making the single-payment under a traditional, two-week payday loan, and such loans frequently result in default or reborrowing. But even fully amortizing payday installment and vehicle installment loans, when made without regard to the consumer's ability to repay, are as capable of producing unaffordable payments as short-term loans and, as discussed below, can produce very substantial harms when combined with high cost and leveraged payment mechanisms or vehicle security.

The Bureau preliminarily believes that consumers are adversely affected by the practice of making these loans without making a reasonable determination that the borrowers obtaining the loans can afford to repay the loan while paying for major financial obligations and basic living expenses. Many lenders who make these loans have developed business models, loan structures, and pricing to permit them to make loans profitably even when very large shares of borrowers default. The Bureau also is concerned that if the Bureau regulated only covered short-term loans and did not also address longer term loans, lenders would further accelerate their gravitation toward hybrid payday loans, payday installment loans, and auto title installment loans, thereby continuing to cause similar harms as those caused by covered short-term loans.

As discussed more fully in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.2, the Bureau is proposing to define “covered longer-term loan” to mean loans with a term greater than 45 days for which the lender charges an all-in cost greater than 36 percent and also takes access to the consumer's account or vehicle security. The Bureau recognizes that, in addition to capturing payday installment loans and vehicle title installment loans, this definition also will cover some longer-term installment loans that are made on the basis of an assessment of the consumer's ability to repay, and where, for example, the lender obtains repayment from the borrower's account as a convenience to the borrower as not as an alternative to careful underwriting. The Bureau does not believe that the requirements contained in proposed § 1041.9, coupled with the exemptions contained in proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1042.12, will have a substantial impact on the making of these loans.

Accordingly, this section focuses specifically on hybrid payday, payday installment, and vehicle title installment loans—loans that are not subject to a meaningful assessment of borrowers' ability to repay. It reviews the available evidence with respect to the demographics of consumers who use these loans, their reasons for doing so, and the outcomes they experience. It also reviews the lender practices that cause these outcomes. In brief, the Bureau preliminarily finds:

• Lower-income, lower-savings consumers in financial difficulty. While there is less research available about the consumers who use these products as compared to the short-term products addressed in subpart B, available information suggests that consumers who use hybrid payday, payday installment, and vehicle title installment loans also tend to come from lower or moderate income households, have little savings or available credit, and have been turned away from other credit products. Their reasons for borrowing and use of loan proceeds are also generally consistent with short-term borrowers.
• Ability-to-collect business models. Lenders have built their business model on an “ability to collect,” rather than the consumers' ability to repay the loans. Specifically, lenders generally screen for fraud risk but do not consider consumers' expenses to determine whether a loan is tailored to what the consumers can actually afford. Lenders rely heavily on pricing structures and on leverage over the consumer's bank account or vehicle title to protect their own interests even when loans prove unaffordable for consumers. This leverage helps ensure that lenders continue receiving payments even when the consumer is then left unable to meet her other obligations and expenses.
• Payment structures. At least with regard to loans that are structured to include large one-time balloon payments, both costly refinancing and increased defaults are a concern. In data from one lender analyzed by the Bureau, about 60 percent of balloon-payment installment loans result in default or refinancing.
• Very high default rates. Borrowers experience very high levels of delinquency and default—in some cases the default rate is over 50 percent at the loan sequence level. Prior to reaching the point of default, borrowers are exposed to a variety of harms that are substantially increased in magnitude because of the leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security relative to similar loans without these features. For example, delinquencies and defaults on loans with leveraged payment mechanisms can lead to multiple NSF fees and multiple lender returned item fees and late fees. And defaulting on a vehicle title loan carries with it the risk of having the vehicle repossessed, which not only leads to the loss of a valuable asset but can also disrupt consumers' lives and put at risk their ability to remain employed.
• Reborrowing. The combination of leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle title with an unaffordable payment can induce the consumer to have to reborrow, when extraction of the unaffordable loan payment leaves, or would leave, consumers with insufficient funds for other expenses. This outcome is prevalent with longer-term loans that include a balloon payment.
• Consumers lose control of their finances. In addition to the harms that result from default, lender use of leveraged payment mechanisms can reduce borrowers' control over their own funds by essentially prioritizing repayment of the loan over payment of the borrower's other important obligations and expenses, which can result in late fees under those obligations and other negative consequences, such as cut-off of utilities. As a practical matter, borrowers' loss of control of their own funds also may occur with vehicle title loans, given the importance to consumers of protecting their vehicle ownership.
• Consumers do not understand the risks. There is strong reason to believe that borrowers do not fully understand or anticipate these impacts in deciding to take out these loans, including both the extraordinarily high likelihood of default and the degree of collateral damage that can occur in connection with unaffordable loans due to the impact on their ability to maintain control over their own funds and accounts and to prioritize their expenditures.

The following discussion reviews the evidence underlying each of these preliminary findings.

b. Borrower Characteristics and Circumstances of Borrowing

Standalone data specifically about payday installment and vehicle title installment borrowers is less robust than for borrowers of the short-term products discussed in subpart B. However, a number of sources provide combined data for both categories. Both the unique and combined sources suggest that borrowers in these markets generally have low-to-moderate incomes and poor credit histories. Their reasons for borrowing and use of loan proceeds are also generally consistent with short-term borrowers.

1. Borrower Characteristics

As described in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, typical payday borrowers have low average incomes ($25,000 to $30,000), poor credit histories, and have often repeatedly sought credit in the months leading up to taking out a payday loan. Given the overlap in the set of firms offering these loans, the similar pricing of the products, and certain similarities in the structure of the products (e.g., the high cost and the synchronization of payment due dates with borrowers' paydays or next deposits of income), the Bureau believes that the characteristics and circumstances of payday installment borrowers are likely to be very similar to those of short-term payday borrowers. To the extent there is data available limited to payday installment borrowers, that data confirms this view.

For example, a study of over one million high-cost loans made by four installment lenders, both storefront and online, reported median borrower gross annual income of $35,057. Similarly, administrative data from Colorado and Illinois indicate that 60 percent of the payday installment borrowers in those States have income of $30,000 or below. And a study of online payday installment borrowers using data from a specialty credit reporting agency found a median income of $30,000 and an average Vantage Score of 523; each of these was essentially identical as the levels for storefront payday borrowers and for online payday borrowers.

The information about vehicle title borrowers that the Bureau has reviewed does not distinguish between single-payment and installment vehicle title borrowers. For the same reasons that the Bureau believes the demographic data with respect to short-term payday borrowers can be extrapolated to payday installment borrowers, the Bureau also believes that the demographic data is likely similar as between short-term vehicle title borrowers and vehicle title installment borrowers. As discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, vehicle-title borrowers across all categories tend to be low- or moderate-income, with 56 percent having reported incomes below $30,000, and are disproportionately racial and ethnic minorities and disproportionately members of female-headed households.

2. Circumstances of Borrowing

Similar to the data availability regarding customer demographics, there is less data available that focuses specifically on the circumstances of borrowing for users of payday installment and vehicle title installment loans relative to short-term products. In addition, as discussed in Market Concerns—Short-term Loans, the data must be approached with some caution given that studies that attempt to examine why consumers took out liquidity loans or for what purpose they used the loan proceeds face a number of challenges. Any survey that asks about past behavior or events runs the risk of recall errors, and the fungibility of money makes this question more complicated. For example, a consumer who has an unexpected expense may not feel the full effect until weeks later, depending on the timing of the unexpected expense relative to other expenses and the receipt of income. In that circumstance, a borrower may say that she took out the loan because of an emergency, or say that the loan was taken out to cover regular expenses.

A 2012 survey of over 1,100 users of alternative small dollar credit products asked borrowers separately about what precipitated the loan and what they used the loan proceeds for. Responses were reported for “very short term” and “short term” credit; “short term” referred to non-bank installment loans and vehicle title loans. The most common reason borrowers gave for taking out “short term” credit (approximately 36 percent of respondents) was “I had a bill for an unexpected expense (e.g., medical emergency, car broke down).” About 23 percent of respondents said “I had a payment due before my paycheck arrived,” which the authors of the report on the survey results interpret as a mismatch in the timing of income and expenses, and a similar number said that their general living expenses are consistently more than their income. The use of funds most commonly identified was to pay for routine expenses, with nearly 30 percent reporting “pay utility bills” and about 20 percent reporting “general living expenses,” but about 25 percent said the use of the money was “car-related,” either purchase or repair. In contrast, participants who took out “very short term” products such as payday and deposit advance products were somewhat more likely to cite “I had a bill or payment due before my paycheck arrived” or that their general living expenses were consistently more than income than respondents who took out “short term” products, though unexpected expenses were also cited by about 30 percent of the “very short term” respondents. More than 40 percent of “very short term” respondents also reported using the funds to pay for routine expenses, including both paying utility bills and general living expenses.

c. Lender Practices

Many lenders making hybrid payday, payday installment, and auto title installment loans have constructed business models that allow them to profitably offer loans despite very high loan-level and sequence-level default rates. Rather than assessing whether borrowers will have the ability to repay the loans, these lenders rely heavily on loan features and practices that result in consumers continuing to make payments beyond the point at which they are affordable. Some of these consumers may repay the entire loan at the expense of suffering adverse consequences in their ability to keep up with other obligations or meet basic living expenses. Others end up defaulting on their installment loans at a point later than would otherwise be the case, thus allowing the lenders to extract additional revenue. The features that make this possible include the ability to withdraw payments directly from borrowers' deposit account or source of income, and the leverage that comes from the ability to repossess the borrower's means of transportation to work and other activities. When these features are combined with the high cost of the loans and, in some cases, a balloon payment structure or the ability to recover additional money through repossessing and selling borrowers' vehicles, there are lenders that operate, presumably at a profit, even when borrowers are defaulting on 50 percent of loan sequences.

1. Failure to Assess ATR

As discussed part II.C, lenders that make payday installment and longer-term vehicle title loans generally gather some basic information about borrowers before making a loan. They normally collect income information, although that in some cases is limited to be self-reported or “stated” income. Payday installment lenders collect information to ensure the borrower has a checking account, and vehicle title lenders collect information about the vehicle that will provide the security for the loan. Some lenders access specialty consumer reporting agencies and engage in sophisticated screening of applicants, and at least some lenders turn down the majority of applicants to whom they have not previously lent.

The primary purposes of this screening, however, is to avoid fraud and other “first payment defaults,” not to ensure that borrowers have the ability to make all the required payments on the loans. These lenders generally do not obtain information about the borrower's existing obligations or living expenses and do not prevent those with expenses chronically exceeding income from taking on additional obligations in the form of payday installment or similar loans. Lending to borrowers who cannot repay their loans would generally not be profitable in a traditional lending market, but the features of these loans—leveraged payment mechanisms, vehicle security, and high cost—turn the traditional model on its head. These features significantly reduce lenders' interest in ensuring that payments under an offered covered longer-term loan are within a consumer's ability to repay.

Leveraged repayment mechanisms and vehicle security significantly reduce lenders' interest in ensuring that payments under an offered covered longer-term loan are within a consumer's ability to repay. With these features, the lender's risk of default is reduced and delayed, even if loan payments ultimately and significantly exceed the consumer's ability to repay. The effect is especially strong when—as is typically the case for payday installment loans—such a lender times the loan payments so that they coincide with deposits of the consumer's periodic income into the account, or has secured the ability to take payments directly from the borrower's paycheck via wage assignment or similar mechanism. In these cases, lenders can succeed in extracting payments from the consumer's account even if the payments are not affordable to the consumer. The lender's risk of default is reduced, and the point at which default ultimately occurs, if ever, is delayed. As a result, the lender's incentive to invest time or effort into determining whether the consumer will have the ability to make the loan payments is greatly diminished.

Vehicle security loans provide a lender with the ability to repossess and sell a consumer's automobile, which often is essential for a consumer to be able to work and earn income. Given the dire consequences of repossession, a consumer is likely to prioritize loan payments under an auto title loan over almost all other financial obligations, even if it greatly exceeds the consumer's ability to repay, making it likely that the lender will receive its payment. Indeed, through exercise of its statutory functions, the Bureau is aware of an auto title lender that based its lending decisions, not on consumers' ability to repay, but in part on consumers' “pride of ownership” in the vehicle, suggesting that vehicle security functioned to make the consumer prioritize loan payment over other expenses even if it was unaffordable to the consumer.

The high-cost feature of covered longer-term loans also greatly reduces the lender's incentive to determine whether a loan payment is within the consumer's ability to repay. When a loan has a high total cost of credit, the total revenue to the lender, relative to the loan principal, enables the lender to profit from a loan, even if the consumer ultimately defaults on the loan. For example, for a $1,000, 12-month loan with a 300 percent interest rate and typical amortization, a lender would typically have received $1,608 after only six months. Moreover, even if defaulted loans are not themselves profitable, lenders can weather such losses when the performing loans are generating such high returns.

As a result, the lender has substantially less incentive to conduct a careful analysis of whether the loan payment will exceed the consumer's ability to repay over the term of the loan and ultimately drive the consumer to default, so long as the consumer has enough income that can be extracted from the consumer by means of a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle title.

2. Pricing structure

Because loan losses are so high in the absence of underwriting for affordability, lenders structure these loans with very high financing costs to ensure profitability. Lenders can thus earn very high returns on the (sometimes minority of) loans that are repaid in full. They also receive substantial amounts in the early months of a loan from many consumers who do ultimately default. Most borrowers who default make some payments first, and because the costs on these loans are so high many of these borrowers actually pay back more than they initially borrowed despite ultimately defaulting on the loan. As discussed in the example above, for a $1,000, 12-month loan with a 300 percent interest rate, a lender would typically have received $1,608 after only six months.

3. Leveraged Payment Mechanisms and Vehicle Security

Lenders also rely heavily on mechanisms that increase their “ability to collect” these expensive payments even if the loan proves ultimately unaffordable for the consumer. In particular, lenders' ability to withdraw payments from borrowers' deposit accounts, and to time those payments to borrowers' receipt of income, increases the likelihood that borrowers will repay, regardless of whether a payment is affordable.

As discussed in part II and in Market Concerns—Presentments, payday installment lenders—particularly those who operate online—are often extremely aggressive in the ways in which they obtain authorization to withdraw funds from consumers' accounts at origination. Under EFTA lenders cannot condition credit on obtaining an authorization from the consumer for “preauthorized” (recurring) electronic fund transfers, but this limitation does not apply to post-dated paper checks or one-time electronic fund transfers. Many lenders often take authorization for multiple payment methods, such as taking a post-dated check along with the consumer's debit card information or for two forms of EFT. Lenders often make alternatives to preauthorized EFTs significantly more burdensome, for instance by requiring special origination procedures, increasing APRs, or delaying the disbursement of loan proceeds if the consumer selects an alternative rather than permitting preauthorized EFTs.

Moreover, as discussed in part II and in Market Concerns—Presentments, it is often not feasible for consumers to prevent lenders from collecting payment from their accounts once the authorizations are granted. Revoking authorizations or instructing the consumer's depository institution to stop payment can be logistically challenging and involve substantial fees and may in any event prove unsuccessful. Accordingly, in order to stop lenders from withdrawing (or attempting to withdraw) funds, borrowers may have to cease depositing funds into their account (and possibly close their accounts) or remove funds quickly enough that lenders are unable to access them. Absent such action, consumers may find themselves short of money for basic living expenses or other financial obligations, and may find themselves facing substantial increases in account and loan fees if the lender's payment collection attempts are paid through overdraft services or trigger returned payments.

Similarly, the practical leverage that comes with a security interest in the consumer's transportation, and the attendant threat of repossession, can prompt consumers to prioritize vehicle title loans above basic living expenses and other financial obligations. As discussed above in part II.C, some lenders further increase this leverage by installing devices on consumers' cars that allow the cars to be shut off remotely in the event of non-payment. Particularly in areas in which the consumer relies heavily on their car for transportation to get to work, access health care, or conduct other basic daily activities, the threat of repossession can be extremely powerful. As discussed above in Part II.B, one or more lenders exceed their maximum loan amount guidelines and consider a consumer's “pride of ownership,” or vehicle's sentimental or use value to the borrower, when assessing the amount of funds they will lend.

d. Patterns of Lending and Severity of Delinquency Default Harms

The circumstances of the borrowers, the structure of the loans, and the practices of the lenders together lead to dramatic negative outcomes for many payday installment and vehicle title installment borrowers. The Bureau is particularly concerned about the harms associated with default, including vehicle repossession and the loss of a deposit account; harms associated with reborrowing and refinancing, especially for balloon-payment loans; harms associated with the ability of lenders to directly withdraw funds from the deposit account; and harms that flow from borrowers defaulting on other major obligations or forgoing basic living expenses as a result of making unaffordable payments on such loans.

1. Delinquency and Default

As discussed above, many borrowers, when faced with unaffordable payments, will be late making loan payments and may ultimately cease making payments altogether and default on their loans. The Bureau is concerned that lenders' ability to withdraw funds from consumers' accounts and to exercise their right to repossess consumers' transportation in the case of vehicle title loans often cause consumers to continue paying on unaffordable loans long past the point that the consumers might otherwise cease making payments on the loan. Even with these powerful mechanisms for extracting payments, however, a very substantial number of borrowers eventually default on their non-underwritten loans. Default leads to collections and, in the case of vehicle title loans, often to repossession of the borrower's vehicle.

While the Bureau is not aware of any data directly measuring the number of late payments across the industry, the Bureau has analyzed checking account data from 2011 and 2012 and identified borrowers who took out loans from online lenders making high-cost loans that are disbursed and repaid through the ACH system. These data demonstrate high rates of overdrafts and returns for insufficient funds. Over half of borrowers' deposit accounts had at least one payment request that resulted in an overdraft or NSF fee. In either case, the borrower would typically pay a fee to her financial institution, and the median fee was $35. For borrowers who are charged such a fee, the average total charge was $185, and 10 percent were charged a total of at least $432. In addition, the consumer may also be charged fees by the lender.

More data is available as to ultimate default rates. And even with the priority provided by leveraged payment mechanisms and vehicle title, an extremely high number of loans ultimately end in default. Specifically, the Bureau has analyzed data on a number of different payday installment loan products offered by seven non-depository institutions. These unsecured installment loans typically carry triple-digit APRs starting around 200 percent, with payment frequencies generally tied to a borrower's payday or date on which benefits are received and payment obtained through access to the consumer's checking account. The lenders whose data the Bureau has studied typically verify a borrower's identity, income, and bank account information. They may also perform varying degrees of underwriting and obtain information from a specialty credit reporting company, but as discussed above focus primarily on screening out fraud and other first-payment defaults.

The overall loan level default rate across payday installment loan products the Bureau is 24 percent. The default rate on loans originated online is much higher, at 41 percent, while for loans originated through storefronts that rate is 17 percent. Default rates are higher at the sequence level. Many borrowers refinance their loans, usually while taking out new cash. The Bureau also analyzed default rates on sequences of loans, which include initial loans, refinancings, and loans taken out within 30 days of the repayment of a prior loan. The sequence default rate is 38 percent overall, 55 percent for loans originated online, and 34 percent for loans originated in storefronts. For loans originated through either channel, approximately 20 percent of loans that defaulted had no payments made; for 80 percent of defaults the lender was repaid at least in part before the borrower defaulted.

These defaults can cause not only direct harms to consumer with regard to the payday installment loan itself, but also collateral damage by way of the borrower's bank account. As discussed above, default may come after a lender has made repeated attempts to collect payments from the borrower's deposit account, such that a borrower not only faces substantial increased fees from the lender and his or her depository institution, but also may ultimately find it necessary to close the account, or the borrower's bank or credit union may close the account if the balance is driven negative and the borrower is unable for an extended period of time to return the balance to positive. In the Bureau's analysis of checking account data for borrowers who took out loans from online lenders thirty-six percent of borrowers who experienced an unsuccessful attempt by an online payday lender to collect a payment from their account subsequently had their accounts closed involuntarily.

The Bureau also found very high rates of default on installment vehicle title loans. In CFPB Report on Supplemental Findings, the Bureau found that the default rate on these loans is 22 percent. When measured at the sequence level, where a sequence includes initial loans, refinancings, and loans that borrowers took out within 30 days of repaying a prior loan, 31 percent of loan sequences ultimately led to a default. The share of defaults where the borrower made no payments prior to defaulting is higher on vehicle title loans, with 32 percent of defaults having no payments made.

Vehicle title lenders have secured the option, in most circumstances, to repossess the vehicle upon default. In the data the Bureau has analyzed, at both the loan and sequence level, approximately 35 percent of defaults led to repossession. That means that 11 percent of loan sequences led to repossession. These rates of repossession are similar to those reported by researchers who gathered data from State regulators. They report a loan-level repossession rate in Idaho in 2011 of just under 10 percent, and a borrower-level default rate (similar to a sequence-level rate) in Texas in 2012 of just under 8 percent.

Repossession can inflict great harm on borrowers. The loss of a vehicle can disrupt people's lives and put at risk their ability to remain employed. The potential impacts of the loss of a vehicle depend on the transportation needs of the borrower's household and the available transportation alternatives. According to two surveys of vehicle title loan borrowers, 15 percent of all borrowers report that they would have no way to get to work or school if they lost their vehicle to repossession. More than one-third (35 percent) of borrowers pledge the title to the only working vehicle in the household (Pew 2015). Even those with a second vehicle or the ability to get rides from friends or take public transportation would presumably experience significant inconvenience or even hardship from the loss of a vehicle.

Borrowers who default on all types of covered longer-term loans are likely to be subject to collection efforts, except where vehicle repossession yields sufficient money to cover the amount owed on the loan. The Bureau has received complaints from borrowers of covered longer-term loans that describe aggressive collections practices that in some cases caused significant psychological and emotional stress and put at risk the consumers' employment. These practices include frequent and repeated phone calls, threats of legal action, repeated contacts with consumers' family members and employers, and even—in some instances—visits to consumers' homes and workplaces.

2. Reborrowing Spurred by Balloon Payment Loan Structures

In CFPB Report on Supplemental Findings, the Bureau analyzed several aspects of refinancing and reborrowing behavior of borrowers taking out vehicle title installment loans. For a longer-term loan with a balloon payment at the end, the data analyzed by the Bureau demonstrated a large increase in borrowing around the time of the balloon payment, relative to loans without a balloon payment feature. Further, for loans with a balloon payment, the reborrowing and refinancing was much more likely to occur around the time that the balloon payment is due and consumers were less likely to take cash out from such refinancings, suggesting that unaffordability of the balloon payment is the primary or sole reason for the reborrowing or refinancing.

Balloon payments were not only associated with a sharp uptick in reborrowing, but also with increased incidence of default. Specifically, about 60 percent of balloon-payment installment loans resulted in refinancing, reborrowing, or default. In contrast, nearly 60 percent of comparable fully-amortizing installment loans were repaid without refinancing or reborrowing. Moreover, the reborrowing often only deepened the consumer's financial distress. The default rate for balloon-payment vehicle title installment loans that the Bureau analyzed was about three times higher than the default rate for comparable fully-amortizing vehicle title installment loans offered by the same lender.

Longer-term loans without balloon repayments also have substantial rates of refinancing, but the dominant pattern appears to be somewhat different than with regard to longer-term loans with balloon payments. In case of longer-term loans without balloon payments, the Bureau's research suggests that most borrowers are withdrawing substantial amounts of cash at the time of the refinancing, and that their payment history prior to the refinancing does not particularly evidence distress. Accordingly, it appears that most refinances for such products involve situations in which consumers are using longer-term installment loans somewhat like a line of credit to take out additional funds before paying back the original loan. This does not mean that the products are ultimately affordable, however, since 38 percent of longer-term loan sequences ultimately end in default. And in individual cases there may still be situations in which consumers who are in distress are pushed into refinancings as a way to forestall default.

3. Collateral Harms From Making Unaffordable Payments

In addition to the harms discussed above, the Bureau is concerned that borrowers who take out these loans may experience other financial hardships as a result of making payments on unaffordable loans. Even if there are sufficient funds in the account, extraction of the payment through leveraged payment mechanisms places control of the timing of the payment with the lender, leading to the risk that the borrower's remaining funds will be insufficient to make payments for other obligations or to meet basic living expenses. Similarly, if a lender has taken a security interest in a borrower's vehicle, the borrower is likely to feel compelled to prioritize payments on the title loan over other bills or crucial expenditures because of the leverage that the threat of repossession gives to the lender. The resulting harms are wide-ranging and, almost by definition, can be quite extreme, including the loss of the consumer's housing, shut-off of utilities, and an inability to provide basic requirements of life for the consumer and any dependents. Consumers may experience knock-on effects from their failure to meet these other obligations, such as additional fees to resume utility services or late fees on other obligations. This risk is further heightened when a lender times the loan payment due dates to coincide with the consumer's receipt of income, which is typically the case with payday installment loans.

Furthermore, even if the consumer's account does not have sufficient funds available to cover the required loan payment, the lender still may be able to collect the payment from the consumer's bank by putting the account into an overdraft position. Where that occurs, the consumer will incur overdraft fees and, at many banks, extended overdraft fees. When new funds are deposited into the account, those funds will go to repay the overdraft and not be available to the consumer to meet her other obligations or basic living expenses. Thus, at least certain types of covered long term loans carry with them a high degree of risk that if the payment proves unaffordable the consumer will still be forced to pay the loan and will incur penalties, such as late fees or shut-off fees on other obligations, or face legal action, such as eviction.

Similarly, with vehicle title loans, borrowers may feel compelled to take extraordinary measures to avoid defaulting on the loans by making a payment at the expense of their ability to meet other obligations. The borrower may forgo paying other significant bills or basic living expenses to avoid repossession of the vehicle.

The Bureau is not able to directly observe the harms borrowers suffer from making unaffordable payments. The presence of a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security, however, both make it highly likely that borrowers who are struggling to pay back the loan will suffer these harms. The very high rates of default on these loans means that many borrowers do struggle to repay these loans, and it is therefore reasonable to infer that many borrowers are suffering harms from making unaffordable payments.

Wage assignments represent a particularly extreme form of a lender taking control of a borrower's funds away from a borrower. When wages are assigned to the lender, the lender does not even need to go through the process of submitting a request for payment to the borrower's financial institution; the money is simply forwarded to the lender without ever passing through the borrower's hands. The Bureau is concerned that where loan agreements provide for wage assignments, a lender can continue to obtain payment as long as the consumer receives income, even if the consumer does not have the ability to repay the loan while meeting her major financial obligations and basic living expenses. This concern applies equally to contract provisions that would require the consumer to repay the loan through payroll deductions or deductions from other sources of income, as such provisions would operate in essentially the same way to extract unaffordable payments.

e. Consumer Expectations and Understanding

The Bureau is concerned about these various negative consequences for consumers from payday installment and vehicle title installment loans because there is strong reason to believe that consumers do not understand the high risk that such loans will prove to be unaffordable or the likelihood of particular collateral consequences such as substantial bank fees and risk of account closure.

As an initial matter, the Bureau believes that many consumers do not understand that payday installment and vehicle title installment lenders do not evaluate their ability to repay their loans and instead have built a business model that tolerates default rates well in excess of 30 percent in many cases. While the Bureau is unaware of any surveys of borrowers in these two markets, these two conditions are directly contrary to the practices of lenders in nearly all other credit markets—including other subprime lenders. Consumers are highly unlikely to understand the effects of leveraged payment mechanisms, vehicle security, and high cost on lender incentives and on the probability that loan payment will exceed consumers' ability to repay.

The Bureau believes that most borrowers are unlikely to take out a loan that they expect to default on, and that the fact that at least one in three sequences end in default strongly suggests that borrowers do not understand how much risk they are exposing themselves to with regard to such negative outcomes as default and loss of their vehicle, having to forgo other major financial obligations or living expenses, or reborrowing in connection with unaffordable loans.

Even if consumers did understand that companies offering payday installment loans and vehicle title installment loans were largely disinterested in their ability to repay, consumers would still be handicapped in their ability to anticipate the risks associated with these loans. As discussed above, borrowers taking out these loans are often already in financial distress. Their long-term financial condition is typically very poor, as evidenced by very low credit scores. Many have had a recent unexpected expense, like a car repair, or a drop in income, or are chronically having trouble making ends meet.

As discussed above in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, consumers in financial crisis tend be overly focused on their immediate problems and not thinking about the future, even the near future. This phenomenon is referred to as “tunneling,” evoking the tunnel-vision decision making that consumers in these situations demonstrate. Even when not facing a crisis, research shows that consumers tend to underestimate their near-term expenditures, and, when estimating how much financial “slack” they will have in the future, discount even the expenditures they do expect to incur. Finally, regardless of their financial situation, research suggests consumers generally may have unrealistic expectations about their future earnings, their future expenses, and their ability to save money to repay future obligations. Research documents that consumers in many contexts demonstrate this “optimism bias.” Consumers tend to underestimate that volatility in their own earnings and expenses, especially the risk of unusually low income or high expenses. Such optimism bias tends to have a greater effect the longer the length of time over which consumers are projecting their income expenses. The payday installment loans and vehicle title loans about which the Bureau is concerned typically range in length from a few months to several years.

Finally, in addition to gaps in consumer expectations about the likelihood that the loans will generally prove unaffordable, the Bureau believes that consumers underestimate the potential damage from default such as secondary fees, loss of vehicle or loss of account. For instance, optimism bias may tend to cause consumers to underestimate degree of harm that could occur if a loan proved unaffordable. Moreover, the Bureau believes that many consumers do not appreciate the degree to which leveraged payment mechanisms can increase the degree of harm from unaffordable loans. As discussed further below in Market Concerns—Payments, payment presentment practices in at least some parts of the industry deviate wildly from other types of lenders and businesses, and are therefore far more likely to trigger multiple NSF and overdraft fees. The Bureau believes that consumers thus do not recognize how much risk of secondary fees and account closure they are taking on with such loans.

Section 1041.8 Identification of Abusive and Unfair Practice—Covered Longer-Term Loans

As discussed above, in most consumer lending markets, it is standard practice for lenders, before making loans, to assess whether would-be borrowers have the ability to repay those loans. In certain markets, Federal law requires this. The Bureau has not determined whether, as a general rule, it is an unfair or abusive practice to make a loan without making such a determination. Nor is the Bureau proposing to resolve that question in this rulemaking.

Rather, the focus of this subpart of the proposal is on a specific set of loans that the Bureau has studied, as discussed in more detail in part II.C and Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans. Much as with the short-term loans discussed in proposed § 1041.4, above, the Bureau believes that the structure and conditions of these longer-term loans create severe risk to consumers where lenders fail to assess applicants' ability to repay the loans. Specifically, the Bureau is focused on non-underwritten loans that involve: (1) A structure that puts the creditor in a preferred position over other obligations of the consumer; and (2) a high cost. These structural features can take the form of a “leveraged payment mechanism” (that is, an arrangement in which the lender has the ability to extract loan payments directly from the consumer's wages or from the consumer's bank account) or a form of vehicle security that allows the lender to repossess the consumer's automobile in the event of default. Sometimes the structures include balloon payment features, which greatly increase the risk that consumers will need to reborrow to meet other obligations.

Based on the evidence described in part II.C and in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, and pursuant to its authority under section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.8 to identify it as both an abusive and an unfair act or practice for a lender to make such a loan (i.e., a covered longer-term loan) without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. “Ability to repay” in this context means that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan over its life and according to its terms without reborrowing and while meeting the consumer's major financial obligations and basic living expenses.

As discussed above and further below, the Bureau is proposing to identify this abusive and unfair practice based on its assessment of the evidence regarding hybrid payday, payday installment, and vehicle title installment loans, which generally are made without any genuine attempt to assess the consumer's ability to repay over the life of the loan. The Bureau again notes that its proposed definition for covered longer-term loans would also include some loans made by other types of lenders that engage in varying types of underwriting designed to assess the consumer's repayment ability. The Bureau believes that the proposed definition of covered longer-term loans is warranted to ensure that the rule is not thwarted by superficial evolution in product structures or descriptions. It also believes that adjusting to the proposed rule would not be a heavy burden for such lenders.

The Bureau's preliminary findings with regard to abusiveness and unfairness are discussed separately below. The Bureau is making these preliminary findings based on the evidence discussed in part II.C and Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans.

a. Abusiveness

Under § 1031(d)(2)(A) and (B) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau may find an act or practice to be abusive in connection with the provision of a consumer financial product or service if it takes unreasonable advantage of (A) a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service or of (B) the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service. When a lender structures a loan so that it meets the definition of a covered longer-term loan, the loan's structure and conditions greatly exacerbate the risks to the consumer of harm from unaffordable loan payments compared to the risks to consumers from most other types of loans, especially given the characteristics of the consumers to whom such loans are marketed. Based on the evidence and concerns described in part II.C and Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, the Bureau believes it may be an abusive act or practice under both section 1031(d)(2)(A) and (B) of the Dodd-Frank Act for a lender to make such a loan, which is defined as a covered longer-term loan in proposed § 1041.3(b)(3), without first making a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan according to its terms.

1. Consumers Lack Understanding of Material Risks and Costs

As discussed in Markets Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, hybrid payday, payday installment and vehicle title installment loans can and frequently do lead to a range of negative consequences for consumers, including high levels of default, being unable to pay other obligations or basic living expenses as a result of making unaffordable payments, and in some cases refinancing or reborrowing, especially where, as is true of hybrid payday loans, the loan includes an unaffordable balloon payment. All of these—including the direct costs that may be payable to lenders and the collateral consequences that may flow from the loans—are risks or costs of these loans, as the Bureau understands and reasonably interprets that phrase.

The Bureau recognizes that, as with short-term covered loans, many consumers who take out hybrid payday, payday installment, and vehicle title installment loans understand that they are incurring a debt that must be repaid within a prescribed period of time and that if they are unable to do so, they will either have to make other arrangements or suffer adverse consequences such as being subject to debt collection or, in the case of loans with vehicle security, repossession. But as discussed in connection with the Bureau's preliminary abusiveness finding regarding short-term covered loans, the Bureau does not believe that such a generalized understanding suffices to establish that consumers understand the material costs and risks of these loans. Rather, as previously explained, the Bureau believes that it is reasonable to interpret “understanding” in this context to mean more than mere awareness that it is within the realm of possibility that a particular negative consequence may follow or cost may be incurred as a result of using the product. For example, consumers may not understand that a risk is very likely to happen or that—though relatively rare—the impact of a particular risk would be severe. If consumers are not actually aware of the likelihood and severity of potential consequences of a product at the point in time they must determine whether to use that product, they are particularly vulnerable to lender acts or practices that can take unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding.

As discussed in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, the defining characteristics of these loans—a leveraged repayment position or vehicle security combined with a high-cost structure—enable lenders to profitably make the loans without engaging in robust underwriting as is done in most other credit markets. These very same characteristics increase the likelihood that consumers will suffer the harms of unaffordable payments and the amount of harm they will experience. The Bureau believes that with respect to covered longer-term loans, consumers generally lack understanding of both the likelihood and the severity of the harms they face.

i. Likelihood of Harm

In most credit markets, lenders' and consumers' interests are normally aligned, so that the success of a lender and a consumer in a transaction is made much more likely by a lender's insistence that loan payments be within the consumer's ability to repay. For that reason, lenders normally engage in underwriting. If the lender determines that payments under a particular prospective loan would exceed a consumer's ability to repay, the lender instead offers a loan with payments that are within the consumer's ability to repay or simply declines to make a loan to that consumer. But in covered longer-term loans markets, lenders find it unnecessary to underwrite, so this beneficial effect for consumer is lacking. The absence of lender underwriting enabled by the two defining characteristics of a covered longer-term loan mean that there is often little or no relationship between the payments under a loan and the financial capacity of the particular consumer who takes the loan. The result is a very high likelihood that a covered longer-term loan will prove to be unaffordable for the consumer who takes it, and thus result in potentially severe harms.

The Bureau believes that consumers taking these loans generally do not understand the counterintuitively high likelihood that loan payments will exceed their ability to repay because of the particular features of these loans, and that they therefore do not understand the magnitude of the risk that they will default, suffer collateral harms from making unaffordable payments, or have to reborrow. As discussed in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, above, lenders that do not determine ability to repay have default rates of 30 percent and as high as 55 percent. A consumer seeking a loan from such a lender is unlikely to understand that the consumer has more than a one-in-three chance of defaulting. Few consumers will be aware that a lender could stay in business while making loans that so frequently result in default, or that its business model depends upon the lender's ability to time and extract payments from the consumer's account or paycheck, even if extraction of those loan payments leaves the consumer unable to meet other financial obligations and basic living expenses. Instead, based on common experience with consumer credit generally, consumers are likely to assume that the lender's continued existence means the vast majority of a lender's loans are successfully repaid, and that a lender that makes them a covered longer-term loan has determined that they are in approximately as good of a financial position to be able to repay the loan as the other consumers who borrow and repay successfully.

The Bureau believes consumers are especially likely to make such an assumption because of the challenges the consumers would face if they were to attempt to assess their own ability to repay instead of assuming that the lender has done so. A consumer seeking to take out a payday installment or vehicle title installment loan is unlikely to have a recent history of a regular periodic excess of income above expenditures (i.e., additions to savings) that she can simply compare to the loan payment under a prospective covered loan. Instead, to assess her own ability to repay, the consumer would have to assess, at a time of high need and high stress, what level of recent expenditures she could eliminate or reduce, and what additional income she could bring in, immediately and for the full term of the loan. Consumers attempting such assessments would likely fall back on the assumption that other similarly situated consumers must have been able to repay covered longer-term loans under the offered terms, and that she is therefore likely to be able to do so too.

Even if a consumer considering offered loan terms actually attempts such a mental budget exercise, in which she postulates what amounts of recent expenses she could eliminate or of extra income she could bring in going forward, such on-the-fly estimates are highly likely to overestimate her true ability to repay. As discussed above in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, decision-making of consumers confronting time pressure and financial distress are especially likely to be affected by optimism bias. A consumer under these conditions is likely to make exaggerated estimates of additional income she could earn or of expenses that she could reduce. She is also likely to underestimate the likelihood of periodic decreases in income and spikes in expenses. And yet an understanding of the risks of a covered longer-term loan requires a reasonably accurate comparison of her true ability to repay and the prospective loan payments. Even a small error is likely to result in a much higher risk than she likely understands, since the risk of harm from a payment that exceeds her ability to repay will typically compound with each successive payment. As a result, an attempt to assess her personal risk from an unaffordable covered longer-term loan payments is unlikely to lead to an accurate understanding of the true risks. Instead, her attempt to understand the risks is highly likely to seriously underestimate them.

For these reasons, the Bureau preliminarily believes that consumers who take out covered longer-term loans do not understand the high risk that the loan will prove unaffordable, and thus, the risk that they are exposing themselves to collateral consequences of delinquency and default, such as the relatively high likelihood of vehicle repossession.

ii. Severity of Harms

The Bureau likewise believes that consumers who take out covered longer-term loans do not understand just how severe some of the collateral consequences can be if the loan in fact proves unaffordable. This is especially true with respect to hybrid payday loans and payday installment products, which are generally accompanied by a leveraged payment mechanism which enables the lender to automatically debit the consumer's bank account.

When a lender obtains a leveraged payment mechanism, even if a loan payment proves unaffordable, the lender still may be able to extract payment from the consumer's account—especially for loans where payments are timed to coincide with the consumer's paycheck. Thus, the consumer loses a degree of control over her finances, including the ability to prioritize payments of her obligations and expenses based on the timing of her receipts of income. So long as there is money in the account when the lender seeks to collect, the lender can get paid without regard to whether the remaining funds will be sufficient to enable the consumer to make payments on other obligations when she must make them or cover basic living expenses. Thus, at least certain types of covered longer-term loans carry with them a high degree of risk that if the payment proves unaffordable the consumer will still be forced to pay the loan and will incur penalties on other obligations, such as late fees or shut-off fees, or face legal action, such as eviction, because of having had to forgo payment on those other obligations.

Furthermore, even if the consumer's account does not have sufficient funds available to cover the required loan payment, the lender still may be able to collect the payment from the consumer's bank by putting the account into an overdraft position. Where that occurs, the consumer will incur overdraft fees and, at many banks, extended overdraft fees. When new funds are deposited into the account, those funds will go to repay the overdraft and not be available to the consumer to meet her other obligations or basic living expenses. If the account remains negative for a prolonged period of time, the bank will likely close the account.

Of course, the fact that such a large portion of covered longer-term loans end up in default indicates that frequently lenders are unable to collect despite their access to the consumer's account and despite their potential ability to force an overdraft. But before these defaults occur, the lenders will almost surely have made at least one—and more often multiple—attempts to debit the consumer's account. Each such attempt will likely result in an NSF fee, which the bank will recover from any subsequent deposits the consumer makes; again, if the account remains negative for a prolonged period of time the bank will likely close the account. In addition, each failed payment may result in the lender tacking on a returned check fee, a late payment fee, or both, and adding that to the amount the lender demands from the consumer through the collection process.

The Bureau's research provides some insight into the magnitude of these consequences. The Bureau was unable to quantify the extent to which the ability of lenders to extract payments using leveraged payment mechanisms causes collateral injury with respect to consumers' ability to meet other obligations or pay basic living expenses. But by studying payment attempts made by over 330 lenders to almost 20,000 accounts, the Bureau was able to quantify the bank fees that borrowers face. Specifically, the Bureau found that 50 percent of these borrowers incur at least one overdraft or NSF fee in connection with their online payday loans—most of which the Bureau believes to be covered longer term loans—and that these borrowers were charged on average $185 in fees. Thirty-six percent of borrowers who experienced an unsuccessful attempt by an online payday lender to collect a payment from their account subsequently had their accounts closed involuntarily.

The Bureau believes that consumers are not likely to understand the magnitude of these adverse consequences that can arise when unaffordable loan payments are combined with a lender's ability to extract loan payments from a consumer's account when she receives her income. A consumer is unlikely to be aware of the types and severity of such harms at the time the consumer accepts offered loan terms. Some of these harms, such as multiple NSF fees from multiple presentments, are not an obvious or widely understood feature of the ACH system and therefore are likely to be unknown to many consumers. Other types of harm, such as overdraft fees, may be familiar to consumers in a general sense, but consumers are not likely to be aware of the extent to which they risk incurring them. The magnitude of these harms—and the potential for consumer misunderstanding—are multiplied by the fact that as discussed below in this part and in Market Concerns—Payments, leveraged payment mechanisms, once authorized, are not easily revoked. The consumer is likely to assume erroneously that de-authorizing is as easy as authorizing.

2. Consumers Are Unable To Protect Their Interests

Under § 1031(d)(2)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act, an act or practice is abusive if it takes unreasonable advantage of “the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service.” Consumers who lack an understanding of the material risks and costs of a consumer financial product or service often will also have an inability to protect their interests in selecting or using that consumer financial product or service. For instance, as discussed above, the Bureau believes that consumers are unlikely to be able to protect their interests in selecting or using hybrid payday, payday installment, and vehicle title installment loans because they do not understand the material risks and costs associated with the products.

But it is reasonable to also conclude from the structure of section 1031(d), which separately declares it abusive to take unreasonable advantage of consumer lack of understanding or of consumers' inability to protect their interests in using or selecting a product or service that in some circumstances, consumers may understand the risks and costs of a product, but nonetheless be unable to protect their interests in selecting or using the product.

The Bureau believes that consumers who take out hybrid payday, payday installment, and vehicle title installment loans may be unable to protect their interests in selecting or using such loans, given their immediate need for cash and their inability in the moment to search out or develop alternatives that would either enable them to avoid the need to borrow or to borrow on affordable terms. Even if some consumers suspect the unaffordability and resulting risks and costs from payments under an offered covered longer-term loan, they may reasonably believe that they cannot obtain a loan with more affordable payments or a loan without leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security, either from the same lender or by shopping among other lenders. They may not have the time or other resources to seek out, develop, or take advantage of any existing alternatives, and may reasonably believe that searching for alternatives will be fruitless and costly. As discussed in Markets Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, consumers who take out covered longer-term loans typically have tried and failed to obtain other forms of credit before turning to these loans as a “last resort.” Thus, based on their prior unsuccessful experience with attempting to obtain credit, these consumers may reasonably—and often correctly—believe that alternative options would not be available to them. These factors place consumers in a vulnerable position when seeking out and taking these loans, leading to an inability to protect their interests.

Once a consumer has taken out a covered longer-term loan she cannot afford, she will be unable to protect her interests in connection with the loan for a different reason. The unaffordability of loan payments under a covered longer-term loan likely will become apparent to a consumer eventually, either after the consumer makes one loan payment or several loan payments. But by then the consumer is legally obligated to repay the debt, and the best the consumer can do is choose among three bad options: Defaulting on the loan, skipping or delaying payments on major financial obligations or living expenses in order to repay the loan, or taking out another loan that will pose the same predicament. It is even difficult for the consumer to limit the collateral consequences of harm to her bank accounts, since as discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, revocation rights related to various forms of leveraged payment mechanisms are complicated by both lender and financial institution procedural requirements, fees, and other obstacles. Some forms of payment may have no practical revocation right and, of course, there is no revocation right with regard to vehicle security.

3. Practice Takes Unreasonable Advantage of Consumer Vulnerabilities

Congress, through section 1031(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, has made it unlawful for a lender to take unreasonable advantage of certain specified consumer vulnerabilities in the context of consumer financial products or services. Those specified vulnerabilities include, in relevant part, a consumer's lack of understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions of a product or service and a consumer's inability to protect her interests in selecting and using a product or service.

The Bureau believes that lenders may take unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding of the material risks and costs of covered longer-term loans, and of consumers' inability to protect their interests in selecting and using these loans, by structuring the loans to combine a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security with high cost and then making such loans without first reasonably determining that the loan payments are within consumers' ability to repay.

As discussed in connection with the Bureau's abusiveness analysis of covered short-term loans, the Bureau recognizes, of course, that in any transaction involving a consumer financial product or service there is likely to be some information asymmetry between the consumer and the financial institution. Often, the financial institution will have superior bargaining power as well. As previously noted, the Bureau does not believe that section 1031(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits financial institutions from taking advantage of their superior knowledge or bargaining power to maximize their profit. Indeed, in a market economy, market participants with such advantages are generally expected to pursue their self-interests. However, section 1031(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act makes plain that there comes a point at which a financial institution's conduct in leveraging consumer's lack of understanding or inability to protect their interests becomes unreasonable advantage-taking and thus potentially abusive.

The Dodd-Frank Act delegates to the Bureau the responsibility for determining when that line has been crossed. As previously explained, the Bureau believes that such determinations are best made with respect to any particular act or practice by taking into account all of the facts and circumstances that are relevant to assessing whether such an act or practice takes unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding or of consumers' inability to protect their interests. Several interrelated considerations lead the Bureau to believe that the practice of making covered longer-term loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay may cross the line and take unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding and inability to protect their interests.

The Bureau first notes that the practice of making loans without regard to the borrower's ability to repay stands in stark contrast to the practice of lenders in virtually every other credit market, and upends traditional notions of responsible lending enshrined in safety-and-soundness principles as well as in a number of laws. The general presupposition of credit markets is that the interest of lenders and borrowers are closely aligned: Lenders succeed (i.e., profit) only when consumers succeed (i.e., repay their loans according to their terms). For example, lenders in other markets, including other subprime lenders, typically do not make loans without first making a reasonable assessment that consumers have the capacity to repay the loan according to the loan terms. Indeed, “capacity” is one of the traditional three “Cs” of lending and is often embodied in tests that look at debt as a proportion of the consumer's income or at the consumer's residual income after repaying the debt.

In the markets for hybrid payday, payday installment, and vehicle installment loans, however, lenders have built a business model that—unbeknownst to borrowers—depends on the lenders' ability to collect rather than on the consumers' ability to repay. As explained above, lenders have used leveraged payment mechanisms and vehicle security in combination with high pricing to ensure that they can extract payments from consumers without regard to whether consumers can afford to make those payments. This assures that lenders can collect enough money from enough consumers to allow the lenders to stay in business and profit despite extraordinarily high levels of default. The cycle quickly becomes vicious for consumers: Lenders make loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, which results in high levels of defaults and, in turn, further fuels lenders' dependence on high prices and various back-end mechanisms to extract sufficient payments to cover loan losses.

As discussed above, the result is that consumers face very significant and severe risks that they do not understand and from which they are unable to protect their interests by taking any realistic action prior to or after consummation of the loan. On the other side of the transaction, lenders are of course aware of the high default rates on their loans and know that they have not made any attempt to match the payment terms they offer to the financial capacity of the consumer, so that there is a high likelihood that the loan payments will prove unaffordable for a given consumer. But consumers do not understand this. Lenders also know that the defining loan features will enable the lender to extract payment from the consumer even if the payment exceeds the consumer's ability to repay and leaves her in financial distress, but consumers do not understand the likelihood or severity of the harms they will suffer in that scenario.

Also relevant in assessing whether the practice at issue involves unreasonable advantage-taking is the vulnerability of the consumers seeking these types of loans. As discussed in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, borrowers of hybrid payday, payday installment, and vehicle installment loans generally have modest incomes, little or no savings, and have tried and failed to obtain other forms of credit. As discussed above, consumers who seek a covered longer-term loan typically do so when they face an immediate need for cash. They are unlikely to be able to accurately self-underwrite and, even if they recognized or suspected that offered loan terms are likely to prove unaffordable, reasonably believe that more favorable loans are not available to them. On the other side of the transaction, lenders know, at a minimum, that many consumers who are unable to afford the loans they offer take them out anyway.

For these reasons, the Bureau believes that lenders may take unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding of these risks and costs, and of consumers' inability to protect their interests, when they make covered longer-term loans without making any reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to make the payments under the loan.

b. Unfairness

Under section 1031(c)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act, an act or practice is unfair if it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidably by consumers and such substantial injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. Based on the evidence and concerns described in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, the Bureau is proposing to identify the practice of making a covered longer-term loan without making a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan as an unfair practice. When a lender makes such a loan to a consumer without first making a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay it, it appears that act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.

1. Causes or Is Likely To Cause Substantial Injury

As noted in part IV, the Bureau's interpretation of the various prongs of the unfairness test is informed by the FTC Act, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, and FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings and related case law. Under these authorities, as discussed in part IV, substantial injury may consist of a small amount of harm to a large number of individuals or a larger amount of harm to a smaller number of individuals.

When a lender makes a loan with the characteristics that make it a covered longer-term loan—a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle title and a high-cost structure—and fails to first determine that the consumer will have the ability to repay, that practice appears to cause or likely cause serious injury to substantial numbers of consumers. As discussed above in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, failure to first determine that the loan payments will be within a consumer's ability to repay causes or is likely to cause many consumers to receive loans with payments that exceed their ability to repay. When the lender also obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security when originating the loan, the injury to consumers from making unaffordable payments is likely to be substantial, as is also discussed above in Markets—Longer-Term Loans. By engaging in practices that increase the likelihood, magnitude, and severity of the risks to consumers, the lender's actions cause or are likely to cause substantial injury.

The injury that is easiest to observe and quantify is the extent to which the practice of making these loans without assessing the consumer's ability to repay leads to default. As discussed above, lenders that do not determine ability to repay commonly have default rates of 30 percent and as high as 55 percent. In the case of a loan for which the lender obtains the ability to extract loan payments from the consumer's bank account, the course of default typically includes several attempts by a lender to extract the payments, which fail due to insufficient funds in the account. Each time this occurs, the consumer's depository institution typically imposes an NSF fee, and the lender often imposes a fee as well. Repeated NSF fees can be followed by involuntary account closure and exclusion from the banking system. As discussed above, the Bureau's research with respect to online payday and payday installment loans found that following an NSF fee, 36 percent of accounts were closed within thirty days. In the case of an auto title loan, the lender may repossess the consumer's car, which can in turn result in inability to travel to work and loss of employment. As discussed above in part Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, evidence shows that over one in ten vehicle title installment loan sequences leads to repossession.

Even consumers who are able to make all of their payments on a payday installment or vehicle title installment loan can suffer substantial injury as a result of the failure of the lender to assess whether the consumer can afford to repay the loan. As discussed in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans the lender may extract, or the consumer may make, loan payments which leave the consumer unable to meet other financial obligations as they fall due and meet basic living expenses as they arise. Indeed, when a loan is an auto title loan or provides the lender the ability to extract loan payments from the consumer's bank account or paycheck, the lender is likely to receive payment even when that leaves the consumer with insufficient funds to meet other obligations and expenses. At a minimum, as discussed above in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, the consumer loses control over her finances, including the ability to prioritize payments of her obligations and expenses based on the timing of her receipts of income. This injury is especially likely to occur when a lender times the unaffordable loan payments to coincide with the consumer's receipts of income, which is common with covered longer-term loans. The consumer is then left with insufficient funds to meet other financial obligations and basic living expenses. For example, a consumer may then be unable to meet expenses such as food, medical care, daycare for dependent children, transportation, or other expenses that are essential for maintaining her source of income. Such consequences could occur prior to a default—if the lender for a time was able to exact unaffordable payments from the consumer's account—or could occur in lieu of a default, if the lender is able to consistently extract payments that are not affordable.

In addition, it is common for depository institutions to honor a payment of a deposited post-dated check or electronic debit even if the payment exceeds the consumer's account balance. In that case, the result is that the payment results in overdraft of the consumer's account, which typically leads to substantial fees imposed on the consumer and, if the consumer cannot clear the overdraft, may lead to involuntary account closure and even exclusion from the banking system.

Third, a consumer facing an imminent unaffordable loan payment may refinance or reborrow in a way that adds to its total costs. As discussed above in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, refinancing and reborrowing are especially likely to be provoked by a balloon payment, and refinancing and reborrowing are especially likely to add dramatically to total costs when the payments preceding a balloon-payment are interest-only payments, as is common. In that case, refinancing or reborrowing may bring about new finance charges equal to what the consumer paid under the prior loan, because the payments on the prior loan did little, if anything, to amortize the principal. The additional cost is then the result of the original, unaffordable loan, and constitutes injury because it is a cost that the consumer almost certainly did not anticipate and take into account at the time she decided to take out the original loan. The higher the total cost of credit, the greater the injury to consumers from these unanticipated costs.

2. Consumer Injury Not Reasonably Avoidable

As previously noted in part IV, under the FTC Act unfairness standard, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings, and related case law, which informs the Bureau's interpretation and application of the unfairness test, an injury is not reasonably avoidable where “some form of seller behavior . . . unreasonably creates or takes advantage of an obstacle to the free exercise of consumer decision-making,” or put another way, unless consumers have reason to anticipate the injury and the means to avoid it.

It appears that many consumers cannot reasonably avoid the injury that results when a lender makes a covered longer-term loan and does not determine that the loan payments are within the consumer's ability to repay. To be able to avoid the injury from entering into a loan with unaffordable payments, a consumer must have a reason to anticipate the injury before entering into the loan. But a confluence of factors creates obstacles to free and informed consumer decision-making, preventing consumers from being able to reasonably anticipate the likelihood and severity of injuries that frequently result from such loans. And after entering into the loan, consumers do not have the means to avoid the injuries that may result should the loan prove unaffordable.

Many consumers are unable to reasonably anticipate the risk that payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan will be unaffordable to them or the range and severity of the harm they will suffer if payments under the loan do prove unaffordable. Based, in part, on their experience with other credit products, they have no reason to understand the way lenders use the ability to extract unaffordable payments from borrowers to make more loans, larger loans, and loans with less affordable payment schedules than they otherwise would while disregarding the affordability of loan payments to a consumer. For example, few consumers are likely aware that an auto title lender may base its underwriting decisions in part on the borrower's perceived attachment to and practical reliance on a vehicle, rather than on the consumer's ability to make loan payments or even on the resale value of the car alone.

Similarly, based on their experience with other credit products, few, if any, consumers are likely aware of the high percentage of covered longer-term loans that result in default or collateral harms from unaffordable payments or that lenders are able to stay in business and profit even when so many consumers default. On the contrary, consumers reasonably expect that the lender's continued existence means the vast majority of a lender's loans are successfully repaid, and that a lender that makes them a covered longer term loan has determined that they are in approximately as good of a financial position to be able to repay the loan as the other consumers who borrow and repay successfully. As a result, a consumer is unlikely to appreciate the high degree of vigilance she must exercise to ensure that loan payments will in fact be within her ability to repay.

In theory, a consumer who realized the importance of being so vigilant could avoid injury by self-underwriting. However, consumers' ability to make accurate assessments is hindered by the specific conditions under which these borrowers seek out such credit in the first place. A consumer seeking to take out a payday installment or vehicle title installment loan is unlikely to have a recent history of a regular periodic excess of income above expenditures (i.e., additions to savings) that she can simply compare to the loan payment under a prospective covered loan. Instead, to assess her own ability to repay, the consumer would have to assess, at a time of high need and high stress, what level of recent expenditures she could eliminate or reduce, and what additional income she could bring in, immediately and for the full term of the loan. Consumers attempting such assessments would likely fall back on the assumption that other similarly situated consumers must have been able to repay covered longer-term loans under the offered terms, and that she is therefore likely to be able to do so too.

As discussed above, even if a consumer considering offered loan terms actually attempts such a mental budget exercise, in which she postulates what amounts of recent expenses she could eliminate or of extra income she could bring in going forward, such on-the-fly estimates are highly likely to overestimate her true ability to repay. As discussed above in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, decision-making of consumers confronting time pressure and financial distress are especially likely to be affected by optimism bias. A consumer under these conditions is likely to make exaggerated estimates of additional income she could earn or of expenses that she could reduce. She is also likely to underestimate the likelihood of periodic decreases in income and spikes in expenses. And yet an understanding of the risks of a covered longer-term loan requires a reasonably accurate comparison of her true ability to repay and the prospective loan payments. Even a small error is likely to result in a much higher risk than she likely understands, since the risk of harm from a payment that exceeds her ability to repay will typically compound with each successive payment. As a result, an attempt to assess her personal risk from an unaffordable covered longer-term loan payments is unlikely to lead to an accurate understanding of the true risks. Instead, her attempt to understand the risks is highly likely to seriously underestimate them.

Consumers likewise do not have a reason to anticipate the impact of strategically timed payment extraction on their finances. Consumers who mistakenly believe that a loan payment is within their ability to repay do not have an incentive to seek out and focus on provisions for income-timed payments extraction or to understand the implication or effect of such provisions if combined with an unaffordable payment. Consumers who believe they are unlikely to qualify for loans on more favorable terms are especially unlikely to focus on such provisions and on severity of the risk they pose, since they believe—often correctly—they are not in a position to obtain a more advantageous loan even if they identified objectionable provisions. Further, the provisions do not make clear how the lender may time extraction of the payment so that the lender will receive payment even if it exceeds the consumer's ability to repay. Provisions permitting a lender to make use of remotely created checks are even more obscure and incomprehensible to consumers than those providing for more traditional electronic funds transfers from consumers' accounts.

As discussed above, some consumers may suspect that payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan may be unaffordable. Such consumers could protect their interest in connection with such a loan by locating a more favorable loan. Such an alternative loan could be more favorable in two ways: (1) Being less expensive, or (2) lacking a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security. However, the Bureau believes that consumers who take out a covered longer-term loan may not be able to avoid the substantial injury in this manner for at least two reasons. First, consumers who find it necessary to seek covered longer-term loans are likely to be experiencing an immediate need for cash and reasonably believe that they are unlikely to find and qualify for better credit options in the immediate timeframe they face. As a result, they may make a reasoned decision to accept covered longer-term loans even when suspecting they may have difficulty affording the payments. Second, lenders do not compete on loans' inclusion (or exclusion) of leveraged payment mechanisms or vehicle security because they have no incentive to do so. On the contrary, as discussed above and in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, lenders have a powerful incentive to include these features: Their entire business model depends on it.

As discussed above, once a consumer has become obligated on a covered longer-term loan with unaffordable payments because she was unable to reasonably anticipate the injuries from taking out such a loan, it is often too late for the consumer to act to avoid the injury. At that point the consumer lacks the means to avoid the injury. If the lender secured the ability to extract payments from the consumer's account, the consumer may theoretically be able to revoke her authorization to the lender to do so or otherwise stop payment, but as explained in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, above, and Market Concerns—Payments, below, there are numerous practical impediments to such revocation that prevent it from being a reasonable means of avoiding the injury. For example, lenders often create a variety of procedural obstacles to revocation, and depository institutions may also impose procedural hurdles and fees for revocation. Some mechanisms, such as remotely created checks, once authorized, may not be revocable. And some lenders may attempt to require the consumer to provide an alternative leveraged payment mechanism or impose other penalties if the consumer seeks to revoke authorization for a particular method of accessing the consumer's account.

3. Injury Not Outweighed by Benefits to Consumers or Competition

As noted in part IV, the Bureau's interpretation of the various prongs of the unfairness test is informed by the FTC Act, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, and FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings and related case law. Under those authorities, it generally is appropriate for purposes of the countervailing benefits prong of the unfairness standard to consider both the costs of imposing a remedy and any benefits that consumers enjoy as a result of the practice, but the determination does not require a precise quantitative analysis of benefits and costs.

It appears to the Bureau that the current practice of making payday installment, vehicle title installment loans, and other covered longer-term loans without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay does not result in benefits to consumers or competition that outweigh the substantial injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid. As discussed above, the amount of injury that is caused by the unfair practice, in the aggregate, appears to be extremely high. Although some individual consumers may be able to avoid the injury, as noted above, a large amount of the substantial injury is not reasonably avoidable. A significant number of consumers who obtain payday installment and vehicle title installment loans end up defaulting. These consumers put either their checking account or their vehicle at risk, and subject themselves to aggressive debt collection practices. In addition, many borrowers also experience substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable as a result of repaying a loan but not being able to meet other obligations and expenses. Many consumers also suffer harm in the form of costs of refinancing and reborrowing caused by unaffordable payments, most often in connection with a covered longer-term loan that includes a balloon payment.

Against this very significant amount of harm, the Bureau must weigh several potential countervailing benefits to consumers or competition of the practice in assessing whether it is unfair. For purposes of analysis, the Bureau divided would-be borrowers into two groups.

The first group consists of borrowers who obtain loans under the status quo and make each payment that falls due under the loans. The Bureau includes in this group those consumers who make a payment but then find it necessary to reborrow, most notably those who do so upon making a balloon payment. The Bureau also includes in this group those consumers who refinance a loan so that, for example, an unaffordable balloon payment that would have fallen due is replaced with a new loan that the consumer repays. The Bureau refers to these borrowers as “repayers” for purposes of this countervailing benefits analysis. As discussed in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, 62 percent of payday installment loan sequences and 69 percent of vehicle title loan sequences end with the consumer repaying the loan.

The Bureau believes that for the most part these consumers could reasonably have been determined at consummation to have had the ability to repay the loans they received, such that the ability-to-repay requirement in proposed § 1041.9 would not have a significant impact on their eligibility for this type of credit. For these borrowers, at most the proposed requirements would reduce somewhat the speed and convenience of applying for a loan. Under the status quo, consumers generally can obtain payday installment loans simply by going online, filling out an application, and showing some evidence of a checking account; storefront payday lenders making payday installment loans may require a little more. For vehicle title loans, all that is generally required is that the consumer owns her vehicle outright without any encumbrance.

Under the proposal, lenders likely would require more information and documentation from or for the consumer. Indeed, under the proposed rule, lenders would be required to obtain a consumer's written statement of her income and payments under major financial obligations. Lenders would also be required to obtain verification evidence of consumers' income and payments under major financial obligations, including their housing expenses. Lenders may in some cases comply with these proposed requirements for verification evidence by seeking documentation from the consumer, which could reduce the speed and convenience for consumers.

Additionally, when a lender makes a loan without determining a consumer's ability to repay today, the lender can make the loan instantaneously upon obtaining whatever documentation the lender chooses to require. In contrast, if lenders assessed consumers' ability to repay under proposed § 1041.9, they would be required to obtain the consumer's borrowing history and determine the consumer's outstanding covered loans using the lender's own records and a report from a registered information system. Lenders would also be required to obtain a consumer report from a national credit reporting agency as verification evidence of a consumer's payments under other major financial obligations. Using this information, along with verification evidence of income, lenders would have to calculate the consumer's residual income by subtracting the consumer's payments under major financial obligations from the consumer's projected income.

As discussed below in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.9, the proposed rule has been designed to enable lenders to obtain electronic verification evidence for income and payments under major financial obligations, to use a model to estimate housing expenses, and to automate the process of securing additional information and determining the consumer's ability to repay. If the proposed ability-to-repay requirements are finalized, the Bureau anticipates that repayers would be able to obtain credit under proposed § 1041.9 to a similar extent as they do in the current market. While the speed and convenience fostered by the current practice may be reduced for these consumers under the proposed rule's requirements, the Bureau does not believe that the proposed requirements will be overly burdensome in this respect. As described in part VI, the Bureau estimates that the required ability-to-repay determination would take essentially no time for a fully automated electronic system and between 15 and 20 minutes for a fully manual system.

While the Bureau believes that lenders would be able to obtain verification evidence needed to demonstrate the ability to repay of most repayers under proposed § 1041.9, the Bureau recognizes that there is a subset of repayers who could not demonstrate their ability to repay the loans they currently are able to receive if required to do so by a lender. For example, some consumers may face challenges in providing verification evidence for a portion or even all of their income. The current lender practice of making loans without determining ability to repay enables these consumers to obtain credit that, by hypothesis, may actually be within their ability to repay. In contrast, the proposed rule's requirement for a lender to obtain verification evidence for a consumer's income may result in some such consumers being deemed to lack the ability to repay a loan they actually might be able to repay (i.e., the “false negative” effect). The Bureau acknowledges that for this group of consumers there may be a significant benefit in being able to obtain covered loans despite a lender's inability to determine their ability to repay in the way prescribed by proposed § 1041.9.

However, the Bureau believes that under the proposed rule, lenders will generally be able to determine consumers' ability to repay and that the size of any residual false negative population will be small. As discussed further below, the Bureau has structured the proposed rule to try to provide substantial flexibility on verification and other underwriting requirements, and is seeking further comment in hopes of identifying additional appropriate measures. The Bureau also notes that these borrowers will generally be motivated to attempt to provide verification evidence needed to determine their ability to repay, in order to receive the loan. It will also be in lenders' interest to obtain the verification evidence needed to determine consumers' an ability to repay. Moreover, even if these consumers could not qualify for the same loan they would have obtained absent an ability-to-pay requirement (e.g., if verification evidence does not exist for a portion of their income), they may still be able to get credit on different terms within their demonstrable ability to repay, such as a loan with a longer term and smaller periodic payments. So long as the loan did not come with a prepayment penalty, these consumers would not be adversely affected by obtaining such a loan since, if the lender underestimates their ability to repay, the consumers could prepay the loan. For these reasons, the Bureau does not believe that there would be a large false negative effect if lenders made loans only to those with the ability to repay.

In addition, the Bureau notes that some current repayers may not actually be able to afford payments under the loans the currently are able to obtain, but end up repaying it nonetheless (rather than reborrowing or defaulting). By definition, this subset of repayers are then unable to meet other expenses and obligations, which may result in them defaulting on or incurring costs in connection with those obligations, such as shut-off of or late fees on utilities. Other repayers respond to an unaffordable payment by refinancing the original loan and incurring additional costs, most typically when a consumer confronts an unaffordable balloon payment. Such repayers would not be able to obtain under proposed § 1041.9 the same loan that they would have obtained absent an ability-to-repay requirement, but they might obtain a loan on different terms (e.g., a longer term with smaller payments) that they could afford. Thus, any benefit they receive under the current practice—to the extent such benefit exists at all—would appear to be extremely modest.

The other group of borrowers consists of those who eventually default on their loans, either when the first payment is due or at a later point in time. In some cases these borrowers default after having refinanced a prior loan with an unaffordable balloon payment and replacing it with a new loan with an unaffordable balloon payment that falls due later. The Bureau refers to all of these borrowers as “defaulters” for purposes of this countervailing benefits analysis. As discussed in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, in the data available to the Bureau, 31 percent of payday installment sequences and 38 percent of vehicle title installment sequences are taken out by borrowers who end up defaulting.

For these consumers, the current lender practice of making loans without regard to their ability to repay may enable them to obtain what amounts to a temporary “reprieve” from their current situation: They can obtain some cash, which may enable them to pay a current bill or current expense. How much of a reprieve the loan provides is entirely speculative. The fact that these consumers eventually default suggests that similar-sized payments they made prior to the payment provoking default—either because the lender extracted money from the consumer's account or because the consumer elected to make a payment to stave off a potential automobile repossession—were unaffordable and caused collateral harm in the meantime. Defaulters are merely substituting a payday installment lender or auto title installment lender for a preexisting creditor, and in doing so, end up in a deeper hole by accruing and paying finance charges, late fees, or other charges at a high rate and enduring additional financial distress, only to face the injuries of default once it occurs. Moreover, for the vast majority of consumers, who do not understand how much risk of default and of collateral damage they are taking on with these loans, at least some portion of these defaulters would be able to obtain credit on more affordable terms if lenders were required to undertake ability-to-repay determinations. To the extent that is true, the “reprieve” that these borrowers are obtaining from the present system is illusory and actually detrimental to their well-being relative to a system in which lenders made loans that consumers could afford to repay. In sum, the Bureau thus does not believe that these defaulters obtain significant benefits from the current lender practice of not determining ability to repay.

In all events, the Bureau believes that the substantial injury suffered by the defaulters, as well as by those repayers who suffer collateral harms from unaffordable or who must refinance or reborrow as a result of balloon and similar unaffordable payments, dwarfs any benefits these groups of borrowers may receive in terms of a temporary reprieve. It also dwarfs the speed and convenience benefits that the repayers may experience. The Bureau acknowledges that any benefits derived by the aforementioned consumers subject to false negative effects may be reduced under the proposed rule, but the Bureau believes that the benefits that this relatively small group receives is outweighed by the substantial injuries to the defaulters and repayers as discussed above. Further, the Bureau believes that under the proposed intervention, many of these borrowers may find more affordable options, such as underwritten credit on terms that are tailored to their budget and more affordable.

The Bureau recognizes that the proposed rule would also have some impacts on lenders' operating costs relative to the status quo, where instead of undertaking the expense and effort of evaluating a potential borrower's residual income, lenders need only secure relatively inexpensive forms of preferred repayment. Theoretically, these resulting avoided costs could benefit consumers, and therefore be germane to the present analysis, to the extent that they resulted in lender net savings that lenders passed on to consumers in the form of lower borrowing costs. But there is little reason to believe that this actually happens in practice. As discussed above in Part II, rather than competing on price, lenders typically charge the maximum amount allowed under State law and instead compete based on friendliness of customer service, as well as on the convenience of store locations and similar factors. In such a market, marginal costs avoided—such as costs avoided by declining to underwrite—are unlikely to result in lower borrowing costs for consumers.

In addition, the Bureau also believes that the net savings to lenders from making loans without determining ability to repay is relatively modest. The Bureau has crafted the proposed ability-to-repay requirement to avoid unnecessary costs. For example, the proposal provides substantial flexibility in the options for verification evidence that lenders could use. It provides an option for lenders to estimate housing expense, rather than to obtain verification evidence, and it does not require inventorying or verification of basic living expenses. Further, the principal amounts and total costs of credit that are typical with covered longer-term loans mean that in many cases the cost of compliance per prospective transaction should be relatively modest compared to revenue from each transaction.

Similarly, the Bureau does not believe that overall lender revenues would be significantly reduced as a result of the proposed requirements, in that lenders would still be able to make loans to most consumers, but loans with payments that are within the consumer's ability to repay. Such loans would tend to have more affordable payments but longer durations, compared to loans made under the status quo, and there is no reason to assume that shift in repayment schedules would tend to reduce lender revenues. Further, the Bureau believes that the total cost of compliance to lenders would be offset to a significant extent by losses from default that lenders will avoid as a result of complying with the requirement to make a reasonable determination that the borrower has the ability to repay the loan prior to making the loan.

Turning to benefits of the practice for competition, the Bureau does not believe that the proposed ability-to-repay requirement will reduce the competitiveness of the markets for covered longer-term loans. The Bureau does not expect, based on its analysis, that the proposed rule will lead to substantial contraction in the industry.

In sum, it appears that the benefits of the identified unfair practice for consumers and competition do not outweigh the substantial, not reasonably avoidable injury caused or likely to be cause by the practice. On the contrary, it appears that the very significant injury caused by the practice outweighs the very small benefits of the practice to consumers.

4. Public Policy

Section 1031(c)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act states that “the Bureau may consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence” in determining whether an act or practice is unfair. In addition to the evidence described above and in Markets Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, established public policy appears to support a finding that it is an unfair practice for lenders to make covered longer-term loans without making a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan.

As discussed above, the Dodd-Frank Act, the CARD Act, the Federal Reserve Board's Higher-Priced Mortgage Loan Rule, guidance from the OCC on abusive lending practices, and guidance from the OCC and FDIC on deposit advance products all require or recommend that certain lenders assess their customers' ability to repay before extending credit.

Such widely-adopted requirements and guidance evince a clear public policy that consumers (as well as safety and soundness interests) suffer substantial injury from loans and other extensions of credit that exceed their ability to repay, and that it is necessary or appropriate for lenders to determine that loan and credit terms are within a consumer's ability to repay, as a condition of making the loan or extending the credit. These public policies show that such determinations are especially critical when subprime or high-cost credit is extended to vulnerable consumers. These policies evince a determination by policymakers that such determinations are necessary because the consumer injury from such practices persists in the absence of regulatory intervention, and that such practices do not provide benefits to consumers that outweigh the harm they cause. Accordingly, the Bureau believes this extensive body of policy is evidence supportive of its unfairness finding.

In addition, the FTC's Credit Practices Rule bans certain provisions in consumer credit contracts allowing for extraction of unaffordable payments from consumers, such as certain provisions for wage assignments and taking a security interest in household goods. That rule reflects a conclusion that such provisions can cause severe risk of injury to consumers. The Bureau's proposal would not be as limiting as the Credit Practices Rule, in that the Bureau is not proposing to prohibit vehicle title loans or loans under which a lender can extract payment from a consumer's account or paycheck. Instead, the Bureau's proposal would permit such practices, provided that the lender first determines that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan.

The Bureau seeks comment on the evidence and proposed findings and conclusions in proposed § 1041.8 and Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans above. As discussed below in connection with proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12, the Bureau also seeks comment on whether making loans with the types of consumer protections contained in proposed § 1041.11(b) through (e) or the types of consumer protections contained in proposed § 1041.12(b) through (f) should not be included in the practice identified in proposed § 1041.8.

Section 1041.9 Ability-to-Repay Determination Required

As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.8 above, the Bureau has tentatively concluded that it is an unfair and abusive act or practice to make a covered longer-term loan without reasonably determining that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan. Section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Bureau's rules may include requirements for the purpose of preventing unfair or abusive acts or practices. The Bureau is proposing to prevent the abusive and unfair practice by including in proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 minimum requirements for how a lender may reasonably determine that a consumer has the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan.

The Bureau notes that the provisions of proposed § 1041.9, which would apply to longer-term loans, mirror and for the most part are identical to the provisions of proposed § 1041.5, which would apply to short-term loans. The same is true of the corresponding proposed commentary for and section-by-section analyses of the two proposed sections. Accordingly, readers who have reviewed proposed § 1041.5, its proposed commentary, and their section-by-section analyses, may find it unnecessary to review the entirety of this section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.9 or the proposed regulatory and commentary provisions it discusses. The Bureau is proposing to include proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.9 and providing separate commentary and section-by-section analyses for those readers who may be interested in only the content that applies to short-term or longer-term loans, respectively.

Proposed § 1041.9 sets forth the prohibition against making a covered longer-term loan (other than a loan that satisfies the conditions in proposed § 1041.11 or § 1041.12) without first making a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the covered longer-term loan according to its terms. It also, in combination with proposed § 1041.10, specifies minimum elements of a baseline methodology that would be required for determining a consumer's ability to repay, using a residual income analysis and an assessment of the consumer's prior borrowing history. In crafting the baseline ability-to-repay methodology established in proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10, the Bureau is attempting to balance carefully several considerations, including the need for consumer protection, industry interests in regulatory certainty and manageable compliance burden, and preservation of access to credit.

Proposed § 1041.9 would generally require the lender to make a reasonable determination that a consumer will have sufficient income, after meeting major financial obligations, to make payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan and to continue meeting basic living expenses. However, based on feedback from a wide range of stakeholders and its own internal analysis, as well as the Bureau's belief that consumer harm has resulted despite more general standards in State law, the Bureau believes that merely establishing such a general requirement would provide insufficient protection for consumers and insufficient certainty for lenders.

Many lenders making payday installment loans have informed the Bureau that they conduct some type of underwriting on covered loans and assert that it should be sufficient to meet the Bureau's standards. However, as discussed above, such underwriting often is designed to screen primarily for fraud (including first payment defaults) and to assess whether the lender will be able to extract payments from the consumer. It typically makes no attempt to assess whether the consumer might be forced to forgo basic necessities or to default on other obligations in order to repay the covered loan over its term. At most, industry underwriting goes no further than to predict the consumer's propensity to repay rather than the consumer's financial capacity (i.e. ability) to repay consistent with the consumer's other obligations and need to cover basic living expenses. Such underwriting ignores the fact that repayment may force the consumer to miss other obligations or to be unable to cover basic living expenses.

The Bureau acknowledges that some online and storefront lenders have reported to the Bureau that they have adopted robust underwriting approaches in making loans, some of which would be covered longer-term loans under the proposal. The Bureau believes that these lenders will be able to adjust their underwriting methodologies to comply with proposed §§ 1041.9 and § 1041.10 with relatively minor modifications. The Bureau also recognizes that some community banks have reported to the Bureau that they make some covered longer-term loans based on their relationship method of underwriting. Proposed § 1041.12 would provide an exemption that the Bureau believes many lenders will be able to rely upon to continue making such loans subject to certain protective conditions.

The Bureau believes that to prevent the abusive and unfair practice that appears to be occurring in the market, it is appropriate not only to require lenders to make a reasonable determination of a consumer's ability to repay before making a covered longer-term loan but also to specify minimum elements of a baseline methodology for evaluating consumers' individual financial situations, including their borrowing history. The baseline methodology is not intended to be a substitute for lender screening and underwriting methods, such as those designed to screen out fraud or predict and avoid other types of lender losses. Accordingly, lenders would be permitted to supplement the baseline methodology with other underwriting and screening methods.

The baseline methodology in proposed § 1041.9 rests on a residual income analysis—that is, an analysis of whether, given the consumer's projected income and major financial obligations, the consumer will have sufficient remaining (i.e., residual) income to cover the payments on the proposed loan and still meet basic living expenses. The Bureau recognizes that in other markets and under other regulatory regimes financial capacity is more typically measured by establishing a maximum DTI ratio. DTI tests generally rest on the assumption that so long as a consumer's debt burden does not exceed a certain threshold percentage of the consumer's income, the remaining share of income will be sufficient for consumer to be able to meet non-debt obligations and other expenses. However, for low- and moderate-income consumers, that assumption is less likely to be true: A DTI ratio that might seem quite reasonable for the “average” consumer can be quite unmanageable for a consumer at the lower end of the income spectrum and the higher end of the debt burden range. Ultimately, whether a particular loan is affordable will depend upon how much money the consumer will have left after paying existing obligations and whether that amount is sufficient to cover the proposed new obligation while still meeting basic living expenses.

In addition, in contrast with other markets in which there are long-established norms for DTI levels that are consistent with sustainable indebtedness, the Bureau does not believe that there exist analogous norms for sustainable DTI levels across the wide range of terms and repayment structures used for covered longer-term loans. Thus, the Bureau believes that residual income is a more direct test of ability to pay than DTI and a more appropriate test with respect to the types of products covered in this rulemaking and the types of consumers to whom these loans are made.

The Bureau has designed the residual income methodology requirements specified in proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 in an effort to ensure that ability-to-repay determinations can be made through scalable underwriting models. The Bureau is proposing that the most critical inputs into the determination rest on documentation but the Bureau's proposed methodology allows for various means of documenting major financial obligations and also establishes alternatives to documentation where appropriate. It recognizes that rent, in particular, often cannot be readily documented and therefore allows for estimation of rental expense. See the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(D), below. The Bureau's proposed methodology also would not mandate verification or detailed analysis of every individual consumer expenditure. The Bureau believes that such detailed analysis may not be the only method to prevent unaffordable loans and is concerned that it would substantially increase costs to lenders and borrowers. See the discussion of basic living expenses, below.

Finally, the Bureau's proposed methodology does not dictate a formulaic answer to whether, in a particular case, a consumer's residual income is sufficient to make a particular loan affordable. Instead, the proposed methodology allows lenders to exercise discretion in arriving at a reasonable determination with respect to that question. Because this type of underwriting is so different from what many lenders currently engage in, the Bureau is particularly conscious of the need to leave room for lenders to innovate and refine their methods over time, including by building automated systems to assess a consumer's ability to repay so long as the basic elements are taken into account.

Proposed § 1041.9 outlines the methodology for assessing the consumer's residual income as part of the assessment of ability to repay. Proposed § 1041.9(a) would set forth definitions used throughout proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10. Proposed § 1041.9(b) would establish the requirement for a lender to determine that a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan and would set forth minimum standards for a reasonable determination that a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan. The standards in proposed § 1041.9(b) generally require a lender to determine that the consumer's income will be sufficient for the consumer to make payments under a covered longer-term loan while accounting for the consumer's payments for major financial obligations and the consumer's basic living expenses. Proposed § 1041.9(c) would establish standards for verification and projections of a consumer's income and major financial obligations on which the lender would be required to base its determination under proposed § 1041.9(b). Section 1041.10 imposes certain additional presumptions, prohibitions, and requirements where the consumer's reborrowing while or shortly after having a prior loan outstanding suggests that the prior loan was not affordable for the consumer, so that the consumer may have particular difficulty in repaying a new covered longer-term loan with similar repayment terms.

As an alternative to the proposed ability-to-repay requirement, the Bureau has considered proposing a disclosure remedy consisting of requiring lenders to provide disclosures to borrowers warning them of the costs and risks of default and other harms that are associated with taking out covered longer-term loans. However, the Bureau believes that such a disclosure remedy would be significantly less effective in preventing the harms described above, for three reasons. First, disclosures do not address the underlying incentives observed in the markets for covered longer-term loans, i.e., that lenders are able to make loans profitably even when a very large share of borrowers default. Second, empirical analysis of the impacts of disclosures for payday borrowers, including the Bureau's own analysis of the Texas disclosure requirement impacts, showed that disclosures have only modest impact overall on borrowing patterns. See section-by-section analysis for proposed § 1041.5. The Bureau believes these findings provide insights into the challenges of informing borrowers in difficult financial circumstances about risks of borrowing, and therefore are relevant to the markets for covered longer-term loans. Third, as discussed in part VI, the Bureau believes that behavioral factors make it likely that disclosures to consumers taking out covered longer-term loans would be ineffective in warning consumers of the risks and preventing the harms that the Bureau seeks to address with the proposal. Due to the potential for tunneling in their decision-making and general optimism bias, as discussed in more detail in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, consumers are likely to dismiss warnings of possible negative outcomes as not applying to them, and to not focus on disclosures of the possible harms associated with an outcome, default, that they do not anticipate experiencing themselves. To the extent the borrowers have thought about the likelihood that they themselves will default on a loan, a general warning about how often people default is unlikely to cause them to revise their own expectations about the chances they themselves will default.

The Bureau requests comment on all aspects of the appropriateness of the proposed approach. For example, the Bureau requests comment on whether a simple prohibition on making covered longer-term loans without determining ability to repay, without specifying the elements of a minimum baseline methodology, would provide adequate protection to consumers and clarity to industry about what would constitute compliance. Similarly, the Bureau requests comment on the adequacy of a less prescriptive requirement for lenders to “consider” specified factors, such as payment amount under a covered longer-term loan, income, debt service payments, and borrowing history, rather than a requirement to determine that residual income is sufficient. (Such an approach could be similar to that of the Bureau's ability-to-repay requirements for residential mortgage loans.) Specifically, the Bureau requests comment on whether there currently exist sufficient norms around the levels of such factors that are and are not consistent with a consumer's ability to repay, such that a requirement for a lender to “consider” such factors would provide adequate consumer protection, as well as adequate certainty for lenders regarding what determinations of ability to repay would and would not reflect sufficient consideration of those factors.

Also during outreach, some stakeholders suggested that the Bureau should adopt underwriting rules of thumb—for example, a maximum payment-to-income ratio—to either presumptively or conclusively demonstrate compliance with the rule. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the Bureau should define such rules of thumb and, if so, what metrics should be included in a final rule and what significance should be given to such metrics.

9(a) Definitions

Proposed § 1041.9(a) would provide definitions of several terms used in § 1041.9 in assessing the consumer's financial situation and proposed § 1041.10 in assessing consumers' borrowing history before determining whether a consumer has the ability to repay a new covered longer-term loan. In particular, proposed § 1041.9(a) includes definitions for various categories of income and expenses that are used in § 1041.9(b), which would establish the methodology that would generally be required for assessing consumers' ability to repay covered longer-term loans. The substantive requirements for making the calculations for each category of income and expenses, as well as the overall determination of a consumer's ability to repay, are provided in § 1041.9(b) and (c), and in their respective commentary. These proposed definitions are discussed in detail below.

9(a)(1) Basic Living Expenses

Proposed § 1041.9(a)(1) would define the basic living expenses component of the ability-to-repay determination that would be required in § 1041.9(b). It would define basic living expenses as expenditures, other than payments for major financial obligations, that a consumer makes for goods and services necessary to maintain the consumer's health, welfare, and ability to produce income, and the health and welfare of members of the consumer's household who are financially dependent on the consumer. Section 1041.9(b) would require the lender to reasonably determine a dollar amount that is sufficiently large so that the consumer would likely be able to make the loan payments and meet basic living expenses without having to default on major financial obligations or having to rely on new consumer credit during the applicable period.

Accordingly, the proposed definition of basic living expenses is a principle-based definition and does not provide a comprehensive list of the expenses for which a lender must account. Proposed comment 9(a)(1)-1 provides illustrative examples of expenses that would be covered by the definition. It provides that food and utilities are examples of goods and services that are necessary for maintaining health and welfare, and that transportation to and from a place of employment and daycare for dependent children, if applicable, are examples of goods and services that are necessary for maintaining the ability to produce income.

The Bureau recognizes that provision of a principle-based definition leaves some ambiguity about, for example, what types and amounts of goods and services are “necessary” for the stated purposes. Lenders would have flexibility in how they determine dollar amounts that meet the proposed definition, provided that they do not rely on amounts that are so low that they are not reasonable for consumers to pay for the types and level of expenses in the definition.

The Bureau's proposed methodology also would not mandate verification or detailed analysis of every individual consumer expenditure. In contrast to major financial obligations (see below), a consumer's recent expenditures may not necessarily reflect the amounts a consumer needs for basic living expenses during the term of a prospective loan, and the Bureau is concerned that such a requirement could substantially increase costs for lenders and consumers while adding little protection for consumers.

The Bureau solicits comment on its principle-based approach to defining basic living expenses, including whether limitation of the definition to “necessary” expenses is appropriate, and whether an alternative, more prescriptive approach would be preferable. For example, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the definition should include, rather than expenses of the types and in amounts that are “necessary” for the purposes specified in the proposed definition, expenses of the types that are likely to recur through the term of the loan and in amounts below which a consumer cannot realistically reduce them. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether there are standards used in other contexts that could be relied upon by the Bureau. For example, the Bureau is aware that the Internal Revenue Service and bankruptcy courts have their own respective standards for calculating amounts an individual needs for expenses while making payments toward a delinquent tax liability or under a bankruptcy-related repayment plan.

9(a)(2) Major Financial Obligations

Proposed § 1041.9(a)(2) would define the major financial obligations component of the ability-to-repay determination specified in § 1041.9(b). Section 1041.9(b) would generally require a lender to determine that a consumer will have sufficient residual income, which is net income after subtracting amounts already committed for making payments for major financial obligations, to make payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan and to meet basic living expenses. Payments for major financial obligations would be subject to the consumer statement and verification evidence provisions under proposed § 1041.9(c)(3).

Specifically, proposed § 1041.9(a)(2) would define the term to mean a consumer's housing expense, minimum payments and any delinquent amounts due under debt obligations (including outstanding covered loans), and court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations. Comment 9(a)(2)-1 would further clarify that housing expense includes the total periodic amount that the consumer applying for the loan is responsible for paying, such as the amount the consumer owes to a landlord for rent or to a creditor for a mortgage. It would provide that minimum payments under debt obligations include periodic payments for automobile loan payments, student loan payments, other covered loan payments, and minimum required credit card payments.

Expenses that the Bureau has included in the proposed definition are expenses that are typically recurring, that can be significant in the amount of a consumer's income that they consume, and that a consumer has little or no ability to change, reduce, or eliminate in the short run, relative to their levels up until application for a covered longer-term loan. The Bureau believes that the extent to which a particular consumer's net income is already committed to making such payments is highly relevant to determining whether that consumer has the ability to make payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan. As a result, the Bureau believes that a lender should be required to inquire about such payments, that they should be subject to verification for accuracy and completeness to the extent feasible, and that a lender should not be permitted to rely on consumer income already committed to such payments in determining a consumer's ability to repay. Expenses included in the proposed definition are roughly analogous to those included in total monthly debt obligations for calculating monthly debt-to-income ratio and monthly residual income under the Bureau's ability-to-repay requirements for certain residential mortgage loans. (See 12 CFR 1026.43(c)(7)(i)(A.))

The Bureau has adjusted its approach to major financial obligations based on feedback from SERs and other industry stakeholders on the Small Business Review Panel Outline. In the SBREFA process, the Bureau stated that it was considering including within the category of major financial obligations “other legally required payments,” such as alimony, and that the Bureau had considered an alternative approach that would have included utility payments and regular medical expenses. However, the Bureau now believes that it would be unduly burdensome to require lenders to make individualized projections of a consumer's utility or medical expenses. With respect to alimony, the Bureau believes that relatively few consumers seeking covered loans have readily verifiable alimony obligations and that, accordingly, inquiring about alimony obligations would impose unnecessary burden. The Bureau also is not including a category of “other legally required payments” because the Bureau believes that category, which was included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, would leave too much ambiguity about what other payments are covered. For further discussion of burden on small businesses associated with verification requirements, see the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.9(c)(3), below.

The Bureau invites comment on whether the items included in the proposed definition of major financial obligations are appropriate, whether other items should be included, and, if so, whether and how the items should be subject to verification. For example, the Bureau invites comment on whether there are other obligations that are typically recurring, significant, and not changeable by the consumer, such as, for example, alimony, daycare commitments, health insurance premiums (other than premiums deducted from a consumer's paycheck, which are already excluded from the proposed definition of net income), or unavoidable medical care expenses. The Bureau likewise invites comment on whether there are payments to which a consumer may be contractually obligated, such as payments or portions of payments under contracts for telecommunication services, that a consumer is unable to reduce from their amounts as of consummation, such that the amounts should be included in the definition of major financial obligations. The Bureau also invites comment on the inclusion in the proposed definition of delinquent amounts due, such as on the practicality of asking consumers about delinquent amounts due on major financial obligations, of comparing stated amounts to any delinquent amounts that may be included in verification evidence (e.g., in a national consumer report), and of accounting for such amounts in projecting a consumer's residual income during the term of the prospective loan. The Bureau also invites comment on whether the Bureau should specify additional rules for addressing major financial obligations that are joint obligations of a consumer applying for a covered longer-term loan (and of a consumer who is not applying for the loan), or whether the provision in proposed § 1041.9(c)(1) allowing lenders to consider consumer explanations and other evidence is sufficient.

9(a)(3) National Consumer Report

Proposed § 1041.9(a)(3) would define national consumer report to mean a consumer report, as defined in section 603(d) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d), obtained from a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis, as defined in section 603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(p). Proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii) would require a lender to obtain a national consumer report as verification evidence for a consumer's required payments under debt obligations and required payments under court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations. Reports that meet the proposed definition are often referred to informally as a credit report or credit history from one of the three major credit reporting agencies or bureaus. A national consumer report may be furnished to a lender from a consumer reporting agency that is not a nationwide consumer reporting agency, such as a consumer reporting agency that is a reseller.

9(a)(4) Net Income

Proposed § 1041.9(a)(4) would define the net income component of the ability-to-repay determination calculation specified in § 1041.9(b). Specifically, it would define the term as the total amount that a consumer receives after the payer deducts amounts for taxes, other obligations, and voluntary contributions that the consumer has directed the payer to deduct, but before deductions of any amounts for payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan or for any major financial obligation. Proposed § 1041.9(b) would generally require a lender to determine that a consumer will have sufficient residual income to make payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan and to meet basic living expenses. Section 1041.9(a)(6), discussed below, would define residual income as the sum of net income that the lender projects the consumer will receive during a period, minus the sum of amounts that the lender projects will be payable by the consumer for major financial obligations during the period. Net income would be subject to the consumer statement and verification evidence provisions under proposed § 1041.9(c)(3).

The proposed definition is similar to what is commonly referred to as “take-home pay” but is phrased broadly to apply to income received from employment, government benefits, or other sources. It would exclude virtually all amounts deducted by the payer of the income, whether deductions are required or voluntary, such as voluntary insurance premiums or union dues. The Bureau believes that the total dollar amount that a consumer actually receives after all such deductions is the amount that is most instructive in determining a consumer's ability to repay. Certain deductions (e.g., taxes) are beyond the consumer's control. Other deductions may not be revocable, at least for a significant period of time, as a result of contractual obligations to which the consumer has entered. Even with respect to purely voluntary deductions, most consumers are unlikely to be able to reduce or eliminate such deductions, between consummation of a loan and the time when payments under the loan would begin to fall due. The Bureau also believes that the net amount a consumer actually receives after all such deductions is likely to be the amount most readily known to consumers applying for a covered longer-term loan (rather than, for example, periodic gross income) and is also the amount that is most readily verifiable by lenders through a variety of methods. The proposed definition would clarify, however, that net income is calculated before deductions of any amounts for payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan or for any major financial obligation. The Bureau proposes the clarification to prevent double counting any such amounts when making the ability-to-repay determination.

The Bureau invites comment on the proposed definition of net income and whether further guidance would be helpful.

9(a)(5) Payment Under the Covered Longer-Term Loan

Proposed § 1041.9(a)(5) would define payment under the covered longer-term loan, which is a component of the ability-to-repay determination calculation specified in § 1041.9(b). Proposed § 1041.9(b) would generally require a lender to determine that a consumer will have sufficient residual income to make payments under a covered longer-term loan and to meet basic living expenses. Specifically, the definition of payment under the covered longer-term loan in proposed § 1041.9(a)(5)(i) and (ii) would include all costs payable by the consumer at a particular time after consummation, regardless of how the costs are described in an agreement or whether they are payable to the lender or a third party. Proposed § 1041.9(a)(5)(iii) provides special rules for projecting payments under the covered loan on lines of credit for purposes of the ability-to-repay test, since actual payments for lines of credit may vary depending on usage.

Proposed § 1041.9(a)(5)(i) would apply to all covered longer-term loans. It would define payment under the covered longer-term loan broadly to mean the combined dollar amount payable by the consumer in connection with the covered loan at a particular time following consummation. Under proposed § 1041.9(b), the lender would be required to reasonably determine the payment amount under this proposed definition as of the time of consummation. The proposed definition would further provide that in calculating the payment under the covered longer-term loan, the lender must assume that the consumer has made preceding required payments and that the consumer has not taken any affirmative act to extend or restructure the repayment schedule or to suspend, cancel, or delay payment for any product, service, or membership provided in connection with the covered longer-term loan. Proposed § 1041.9(a)(5)(ii) would similarly apply to all covered longer-term loans and would clarify that payment under the covered loan includes all principal, interest, charges, and fees.

The Bureau believes that a broad definition, such as the one proposed, is necessary to capture the full dollar amount payable by the consumer in connection with the covered longer-term loan, including amounts for voluntary insurance or memberships and regardless of whether amounts are due to the lender or another person. It is the total dollar amount due at each particular time that is relevant to determining whether or not a consumer has the ability to repay the loan based on the consumer's projected net income and payments for major financial obligations. The amount of the payment is what is important, not whether the components of the payment include principal, interest, fees, insurance premiums, or other charges. The Bureau recognizes, however, that there is great variety in the repayment terms of covered longer-term loans, and that under the terms of some covered longer-term loans, a consumer may have options regarding how much the consumer must pay at any given time and that the consumer may in some cases be able to select a different payment option. The proposed definition would include any amount payable by a consumer in the absence of any affirmative act by the consumer to extend or restructure the repayment schedule, or to suspend, cancel, or delay payment for any product, service, or membership provided in connection with the covered longer-term loan. Proposed comment 9(a)(5)(i) and 9(a)(5)(ii)-1 includes three examples applying the proposed definition to scenarios in which the payment under the covered longer-term loan includes several components, including voluntary fees owed to a person other than the lender, as well as scenarios in which the consumer has the option of making different payment amounts.

Proposed § 1041.9(a)(5)(iii) would include additional provisions for calculating the projected payment amount under a covered line of credit for purposes of assessing a consumer's ability to repay the loan. As explained in proposed comment 9(a)(5)(iii)-1, such rules are necessary because the amount and timing of the consumer's actual payments on a line of credit after consummation may depend on the consumer's utilization of the credit (i.e., the amount the consumer has drawn down) or on amounts that the consumer has repaid prior to the payments in question. As a result, if the definition of payment under the covered longer-term loan did not specify assumptions about consumer utilization and repayment under a line of credit, there would be uncertainty as to the amounts and timing of payments to which the ability-to-repay requirement applies. Proposed § 1041.9(a)(5)(iii) therefore prescribes assumptions that a lender must make in calculating the payment under the covered longer-term loan. It would require the lender to assume that the consumer will utilize the full amount of credit under the covered longer-term loan as soon as the credit is available to the consumer, that the consumer will make only minimum required payments under the covered longer-term loan, and, if the terms of the covered longer-term loan would not provide for termination of access to the line of credit by a date certain and for full repayment of all amounts due by a subsequent date certain, that the consumer must repay any remaining balance in one payment on the date that is 180 days following the consummation date. The lender would then apply the ability-to-repay determination to that assumed repayment schedule.

The Bureau believes these assumptions about a consumer's utilization and repayment are important to ensure that the lender makes its ability-to-repay determination based on the most challenging loan payment that a consumer may face under the covered longer-term loan. They also reflect the likely borrowing and repayment behavior of many consumers who obtain covered loans with a line of credit. Such consumers are typically facing an immediate liquidity need and, in light of the relatively high cost of credit, would normally seek a line of credit approximating the amount of the need. Assuming the lender does not provide a line of credit well in excess of the consumer's need, the consumer is then likely to draw down the full amount of the line of credit shortly after consummation. Liquidity-constrained consumers may make only minimum required payments under a line of credit and, if the terms of the covered longer-term loan provide for an end date, may then face having to repay the outstanding balance in one payment at a time specified under the terms of the covered loan. It is such a payment that is likely to be the highest payment possible under the terms of the covered longer-term loan and therefore the payment for which a consumer is least likely to have the ability to repay. Indeed, as discussed above in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, consumers very often refinance or reborrow when such a high payment falls due, even after successfully making a series of lower, often interest-only minimum payments. The lender would then apply the ability-to-repay determination to that assumed repayment schedule.

For any covered longer-term loan with a line of credit that does not provide for a date certain by which the outstanding balance must be repaid, the definition would require the lender to assume full repayment of the outstanding balance 180 days after consummation. It would ensure that lenders make the required ability-to-repay determination for an assumed repayment schedule that would result in full repayment of the loan and provide lenders with greater certainty as to how to comply with the requirements of § 1041.9.

The Bureau invites comment on the proposed definition of payment under the covered longer-term loan. Specifically, the Bureau invites comment on whether the provisions of proposed § 1041.9(a)(5) are sufficiently comprehensive and clear to allow for determination of a payment under the wide variety of terms that are available under covered longer-term loans, especially for lines of credit. The Bureau also invites comment on the proposed approach to lines of credit that do not provide for repayment by a date certain and whether an alternative approach would be more appropriate for purposes of assessing ability to repay.

9(a)(6) Residual Income

Proposed § 1041.9(a)(6) would define the residual income component of the ability-to-repay determination calculation specified in § 1041.9(b). Specifically, it would define the term as the sum of net income that the lender projects the consumer obligated under the loan will receive during a period, minus the sum of amounts that the lender projects will be payable by the consumer for major financial obligations during the period, all of which projected amounts must be based on verification evidence, as provided under § 1041.9(c). Proposed section 1041.9(b) would generally require a lender to determine that a consumer will have sufficient residual income to make payments under a covered longer-term loan and to meet basic living expenses.

The proposed definition would ensure that a lender's ability-to-repay determination cannot rely on the amount of a consumer's net income that, as of the time a prospective loan would be consummated, is already committed to pay for major financial obligations during the applicable period. For example, a consumer's net income may be greater than the amount of a loan payment, so that the lender successfully obtains the loan payment from a consumer's deposit account once the consumer's income is deposited into the account. But if the consumer is then left with insufficient funds to make payments for major financial obligations, such as a rent payment, then the consumer may be forced to choose between failing to pay rent when due, forgoing basic needs, or reborrowing.

9(b) Reasonable Determination Required

Proposed § 1041.9(b) would prohibit lenders from making covered longer-term loans without first making a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan according to its terms, unless the loans are made in accordance with § 1041.11 or § 1041.12. Specifically, § 1041.9(b)(1) requires lenders to make a reasonable determination of ability to repay before making a new covered longer-term loan, increasing the credit available under an existing loan, or before advancing additional credit under a covered line of credit if more than 180 days have expired since the last such determination. Proposed § 1041.9(b)(2) specifies minimum elements of a baseline methodology that would be required for determining a consumer's ability to repay, using a residual income analysis and an assessment of the consumer's prior borrowing history. It would require the assessment to be based on projections of the consumer's net income, major financial obligations, and basic living expenses that are made in accordance with proposed § 1041.9(c). It would require that, using such projections, the lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make all payments under the loan and still meet basic living expenses during the term of the loan. It would further require that for a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan, a lender must conclude that the consumer, after making the highest payment under the loan, will continue to be able to meet major financial obligations as they fall due and meet basic living expenses for a period of 30 additional days. Finally, proposed § 1041.9(b)(2) would require that in situations in which the consumer's recent borrowing history suggests that she may have difficulty repaying a new loan as specified in proposed § 1041.10, a lender must make the additional determinations required by proposed § 1041.10 before extending credit.

9(b)(1)

Proposed § 1041.9(b)(1) would provide generally that, except as provided in 1041.11 or § 1041.12, a lender must not make a covered longer-term loan or increase the credit available under a covered longer-term loan unless the lender first makes a reasonable determination of ability to repay for the covered longer-term loan. The provision would also impose a requirement to determine a consumer's ability to repay before advancing additional funds under a covered longer-term loan that is a line of credit if such advance would occur more than 180 days after the date of a previous required determination.

Section 1041.9(b)(1)(i) would provide that a lender is not required to make the determination when it makes a covered longer-term loan under the conditions set forth in § 1041.11 or § 1041.12. The conditions that would apply under § 1041.11 and § 1041.12 provide alternative protections from the harms caused by covered longer-term loan payments that exceed a consumer's ability to repay, such that the Bureau is proposing to allow lenders to make such loans in accordance with the regulation without engaging in an ability-to-repay determination under §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10. (See the section-by-section analysis of §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12, below.)

The Bureau notes that proposed § 1041.9(b)(1) would require the ability-to-repay determination before a lender actually takes one of the triggering actions. The Bureau recognizes that lenders decline covered loan applications for a variety of reasons, including to prevent fraud, avoid possible losses, and to comply with State law or other regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the requirements of § 1041.9(b)(1) would not require a lender to make the ability-to-repay determination for every covered longer-term loan application it receives, but rather only before taking one of the enumerated actions with respect to a covered longer-term loan. Similarly, nothing in proposed § 1041.9(b)(1) would prohibit a lender from applying screening or underwriting approaches in addition to those required under § 1041.9(b) prior to making a covered longer-term loan.

Proposed § 1041.9(b)(1)(ii) would provide that for a covered longer-term loan that is a line of credit, a lender must not permit a consumer to obtain an advance under the line of credit more than 180 days after the date of a prior required determination, unless the lender first makes a new reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the covered longer-term loan. Under a line of credit, a consumer typically can obtain advances up to the maximum available credit at the consumer's discretion, often long after the covered loan was consummated. Each time the consumer obtains an advance under a line of credit, the consumer becomes obligated to make a new payment or series of payments based on the terms of the covered loan. But when significant time has elapsed since the date of a lender's prior required determination, the facts on which the lender relied in determining the consumer's ability to repay may have deteriorated significantly. During the Bureau's outreach to industry, the Small Dollar Roundtable urged the Bureau to require a lender to periodically make a new reasonable determination of ability to repay in connection with a covered loan that is a line of credit. The Bureau believes that the proposed requirement to make a new determination of ability to repay for a line of credit 180 days following a prior required determination appropriately balances the burden on lenders and the protective benefit for consumers.

Reasonable Determination

Proposed § 1041.9(b) would require a lender to make a reasonable determination that a consumer will be able to repay a covered longer-term loan according to its terms. As discussed above and as reflected in the provisions of proposed § 1041.9(b), a consumer has the ability to repay a covered loan according to its terms only if the consumer is able to make all payments under the covered loan as they fall due while also making payments under the consumer's major financial obligations as they fall due and continuing to meet basic living expenses without, as a result of making payments under a covered loan, having to reborrow.

Proposed comment 9(b)-1 provides an overview of the baseline methodology that would be required as part of a reasonable determination of a consumer's ability to repay in §§ 1041.9(b)(2), 1041.9(c), and 1041.10 and under their associated commentary.

Proposed comment 9(b)-2 would identify standards for evaluating whether a lender's ability-to-repay determinations under proposed § 1041.9 are reasonable. It would clarify minimum requirements of a reasonable ability-to-repay determination; identify assumptions that, if relied upon by the lender, render a determination not reasonable; and establish that the overall performance of a lender's covered longer-term loans is evidence of whether the lender's determinations for those covered longer-term loans are reasonable.

The proposed standards would not impose bright line rules prohibiting covered longer-term loans based on fixed mathematical ratios or similar distinctions, and they are designed to apply to the wide variety among covered longer-term loans and lender business models. For many lenders and many loans, several aspects of the proposed standards will not be applicable at all. For example, a lender that does not make covered longer-term balloon-payment loans would not have to make the determination under proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii), concerning a consumer's ability to meet basic living expenses over a 30-day period following the highest payment under these types of loans. Moreover, the Bureau does not anticipate that a lender would need to perform a manual analysis of each prospective loan to determine whether it meets all of the proposed standards. Instead, each lender would be required under proposed § 1041.18 to develop and implement policies and procedures for approving and making covered longer-term loans in compliance with the proposed standards and based on the types of covered longer-term loans that the lender makes. A lender would then apply its own policies and procedures to its underwriting decisions, which the Bureau anticipates could be largely automated for the majority of consumers and covered longer-term loans.

Minimum requirements. Proposed comment 9(b)-2.i would provide that for a lender's ability-to-repay determination to be reasonable, the lender must comply with applicable provisions in proposed § 1041.9. It also provides additional interpretation of what makes a determination reasonable. For example, it would note that the determination must include the applicable determinations provided in § 1041.9(b)(2), be based on reasonable projections of a consumer's net income and major financial obligations in accordance with § 1041.9(c), be based on reasonable estimates of a consumer's basic living expenses under § 1041.9(b), and appropriately account for the possibility of volatility in a consumer's income and basic living expenses during the term of the loan under § 1041.9(b)(2)(i). It would also have to be consistent with the lender's written policies and procedures required under § 1041.18(b).

Proposed comment 9(b)-2.i would also provide that to be reasonable, a lender's ability-to-repay determination must be grounded in reasonable inferences and conclusions in light of information the lender is required to obtain or consider. As discussed above, each lender would be required under proposed § 1041.18 to develop policies and procedures for approving and making covered longer-term loans in compliance with the proposal. The policies and procedures would specify the conclusions that the lender makes based on information it obtains, and lenders would then be able to largely automate application of those policies and procedures for most consumers. For example, proposed § 1041.9(c) would require a lender to obtain verification evidence for a consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations, but it would provide for lender discretion in resolving any ambiguities in the verification evidence to project what the consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations will be following consummation of the covered longer-term loan.

Finally, proposed comment 9(b)-2.i would provide that for a lender's ability-to-repay determination to be reasonable, the lender must appropriately account for information known by the lender, whether or not the lender is required to obtain the information under § 1041.9, that indicates that the consumer may not have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan according to its terms. The provision would not require a lender to obtain information other than information specified in proposed § 1041.9. However, a lender might become aware of information that casts doubt on whether a particular consumer would have the ability to repay a particular prospective covered longer-term loan. For example, proposed § 1041.9 would not require a lender to inquire about a consumer's individual transportation or medical expenses, and the lender's ability-to-repay method might comply with the proposed requirement to estimate consumers' basic living expenses by factoring into the estimate of basic living expenses a normal allowance for expenses of this type. But if the lender learned that a particular consumer had a transportation or recurring medical expense dramatically in excess of an amount the lender used in estimating basic living expenses for consumers generally, proposed comment 9(b)-2.i would clarify that the lender could not simply ignore that fact. Instead, it would have to consider the transportation or medical expense and then reach a reasonable determination that the expense does not negate the lender's otherwise reasonable ability-to-repay determination.

The Bureau invites comment on the minimum requirements for making a reasonable determination of ability to repay, including whether additional specificity should be provided in the regulation text or in the commentary with respect to circumstances in which a lender is required to take into account information known by the lender.

Determinations that are not reasonable. Proposed comment 9(b)-2.ii would provide two examples of ability-to-repay determinations that are not reasonable. The first example is a determination that relies on an assumption that the consumer will obtain additional consumer credit to be able to make payments under the covered longer-term loan, to make payments under major financial obligations, or to meet basic living expenses. The Bureau believes that a consumer whose net income would be sufficient to make payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan, to make payments under major financial obligations, and to meet basic living expenses during the applicable period only if the consumer supplements that net income by borrowing additional consumer credit is a consumer who, by definition, lacks the ability to repay the prospective covered longer-term loan. Although the Bureau believes this reasoning is clear, it is proposing the commentary example because some lenders have argued that the mere fact that a lender successfully secures repayment of the full amount due from a consumer's deposit account shows that the consumer had the ability to repay the loan, even if the consumer then immediately has to reborrow to meet the consumer's other obligations and expenses. Inclusion of the example in commentary would confirm that an ability-to-repay determination is not reasonable if it relies on an implicit assumption that a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan for the reason that the consumer will obtain further consumer credit to make payments under major financial obligations or to meet basic living expenses.

The second example in proposed comment 9(b)-2.ii of an ability-to-repay determination that is not reasonable is one that relies on an assumption that a consumer will accumulate savings while making one or more payments under a covered longer-term loan and that, because of such assumed future savings, will be able to make a subsequent loan payment under a covered longer-term loan. Like the prior comment, the Bureau is including this comment in an abundance of caution lest some lenders seek to justify a decision to make, for example, a multi-payment, interest-only loan with a balloon payment on the ground that during the interest-only period the consumer will be able to accumulate savings to cover the balloon payment when due. A consumer who finds it necessary to seek a covered longer-term loan typically does so because she has not been able to accumulate sufficient savings while meeting her existing obligations and expenses. As discussed in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, above, the high incidence of reborrowing and refinancing coinciding with balloon payments under longer-term loans strongly suggests that consumers are not, in fact, able to accumulate sufficient savings while making lower payments to then be able to make a balloon payment. A projection that a consumer will accumulate savings in the future is purely speculative, and basing an ability-to-repay determination on such speculation presents an unacceptable risk of an erroneous determination. The Bureau therefore believes that basing a determination of a consumer's ability to repay on such speculative projections would not be reasonable.

The Bureau, invites comment on whether there are any circumstances under which basing an ability-to-repay determination for a covered longer-term loan on assumed future borrowing or assumed future accumulation of savings would be reasonable.

Performance of a lender's covered longer-term loans as evidence. In determining whether a lender has complied with the requirements of proposed § 1041.9, there is a threshold question of whether the lender has carried out the required procedural steps, for example by obtaining consumer statements and verification evidence, projecting net income and payments under major financial obligations, and making determinations about the sufficiency of a consumer's residual income. In some cases, a lender might have carried out these steps but still have violated § 1041.9 by making determinations that are facially unreasonable, such as if a lender's determinations assume that a consumer needs amounts to meet basic living expenses that are clearly insufficient for that purpose.

In other cases the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a lender's determinations might be less clear. Accordingly, proposed comment 9(b)-2.iii would provide that evidence of whether a lender's determinations of ability to repay are reasonable may include the extent to which the lender's determinations subject to § 1041.9 result in rates of delinquency, default, and reborrowing for covered longer-term loans, as well as how those rates compare to the rates of other lenders making similar covered longer-term loans to similarly situated consumers. As discussed above, the Bureau recognizes that the affordability of loan payments is not the only factor that affects whether a consumer repays a covered longer-term loan according to its terms without reborrowing. A particular consumer may obtain a covered longer-term loan with payments that are within the consumer's ability to repay at the time of consummation, but factors such as the consumer's continual opportunity to work, willingness to repay, and financial management may affect the performance of that consumer's loan. Similarly, a particular consumer may obtain a covered longer-term loan with payments that exceed the consumer's ability to repay at the time of consummation, but factors such as a lender's use of a leveraged payment mechanism, taking of vehicle security, and collection tactics, as well as the consumer's ability to access informal credit from friends or relatives, might result in repayment of the loan without reborrowing or other indicia of harm that are visible through observations of loan performance and reborrowing. However, if a lender's determinations subject to proposed § 1041.9 regularly result in rates of delinquency, default, or reborrowing that are significantly higher than those of other lenders making similar covered longer-term loans to similarly situated consumers, that fact is evidence that the lender may be systematically underestimating amounts that consumers generally need for basic living expenses, or is in some other way overestimating consumers' ability to repay.

Proposed comment 9(b)-2.iii would not mean that a lender's compliance with the requirements of § 1041.9 for a particular loan could be determined based on the performance of that loan. Nor would proposed comment 9(b)-2.iii mean that comparison of the performance of a lender's covered longer-term loans with the performance of covered longer-term loans of other lenders could be the sole basis for determining whether that lender's determinations of ability to repay comply or do not comply with the requirements of § 1041.9. For example, one lender may have default rates that are much lower than the default rates of other lenders because it uses aggressive collection tactics, not because its determinations of ability to repay are reasonable. Similarly, the fact that one lender's default rates are similar to the default rates of other lenders does not indicate that the lenders' determinations of ability to repay are reasonable; the similar rates could also result from the fact that the lenders' respective determinations of ability to repay are similarly unreasonable. The Bureau believes, however, that such comparisons will provide important evidence that, considered along with other evidence, would facilitate evaluation of whether a lender's ability-to-repay determinations are reasonable.

For example, a lender may use estimates for a consumer's basic living expenses that initially appear unrealistically low, but if the lender's determinations otherwise comply with the requirements of § 1041.9 and otherwise result in covered longer-term loan performance that is materially better than that of peer lenders, the covered longer-term loan performance may help show that the lender's determinations are reasonable. Similarly, an online lender might experience default rates significantly in excess of those of peer lenders, but other evidence may show that the lender followed policies and procedures similar to those used by other lenders and that the high default rate resulted from a high number of fraudulent applications. On the other hand, if consumers experience systematically worse rates of delinquency, default, and reborrowing on covered longer-term loans made by lender A, compared to the rates of other lenders making similar loans, that fact may be important evidence of whether that lender's estimates of basic living expenses are, in fact, unrealistically low and therefore whether the lender's ability-to-repay determinations are reasonable.

The Bureau invites comment on whether and, if so, how the performance of a lender's portfolio of covered longer-term loans should be factored in to an assessment of whether the lender has complied with its obligations under the rule, including whether the Bureau should specify thresholds which presumptively or conclusively establish compliance or non-compliance and, if so, how such thresholds should be determined.

Payments Under a Covered Longer-Term Loan

Proposed comment 9(b)-3 notes that a lender is responsible for calculating the timing and amount of all payments under the covered longer-term loan. The timing and amount of all loan payments under the covered longer-term loan are an essential component of the required reasonable determination of a consumer's ability to repay under proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii). Calculation of the timing and amount of all payments under a covered longer-term loan is also necessary to determine which component determinations under proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) apply to a particular prospective covered longer-term loan. Proposed comment 9(b)-3 cross references the definition of payment under a covered longer-term loan in proposed § 1041.9(a)(5), which includes requirements and assumptions that apply to a lender's calculation of the amount and timing of all payments under a covered longer-term loan.

Basic Living Expenses

A lender's ability-to-repay determination under proposed § 1041.9(b) would be required to account for a consumer's need to meet basic living expenses during the applicable period while also making payments for major financial obligations and payments under a covered longer-term loan. As discussed above, § 1041.9(a)(1) would define basic living expenses as expenditures, other than payments for major financial obligations, that the consumer must make for goods and services that are necessary to maintain the consumer's health, welfare, and ability to produce income, and the health and welfare of members of the consumer's household who are financially dependent on the consumer. If a lender's ability-to-repay determination did not account for a consumer's need to meet basic living expenses, and instead merely determined that a consumer's net income is sufficient to make payments for major financial obligations and for the covered longer-term loan, the determination would greatly overestimate a consumer's ability to repay a covered longer-term loan and would be unreasonable. Doing so would be the equivalent of determining, under the Bureau's ability-to-repay rule for residential mortgage loans, that a consumer has the ability to repay a mortgage from income even if that mortgage would result in a debt-to-income ratio of 100 percent. The Bureau believes there would be nearly universal consensus that such a determination would be unreasonable.

However, the Bureau recognizes that in contrast with payments under most major financial obligations, which the Bureau believes a lender can usually ascertain and verify for each consumer without unreasonable burden, it would be extremely challenging to determine a complete and accurate itemization of each consumer's basic living expenses. Moreover, a consumer may have somewhat greater ability to reduce in the short-run some expenditures that do not meet the Bureau's proposed definition of major financial obligations. For example, a consumer may be able for a period of time to reduce commuting expenses by ride sharing.

Accordingly, the Bureau is not proposing to prescribe a particular method that a lender would be required to use for estimating an amount of funds that a consumer requires to meet basic living expenses for an applicable period. Instead, proposed comment 9(b)-4 would provide the principle that whether a lender's method complies with the § 1041.9 requirement for a lender to make a reasonable ability-to-repay determination depends on whether it is reasonably designed to determine whether a consumer would likely be able to make the loan payments and meet basic living expenses without defaulting on major financial obligations or having to rely on new consumer credit during the applicable period.

Proposed comment 9(b)-4 would provide a non-exhaustive list of methods that may be reasonable ways to estimate basic living expenses. The first method is to set minimum percentages of income or dollar amounts based on a statistically valid survey of expenses of similarly situated consumers, taking into consideration the consumer's income, location, and household size. This example is based on a method that several lenders have told the Bureau they currently use in determining whether a consumer will have the ability to repay a loan and is consistent with the recommendations of the Small Dollar Roundtable. The Bureau notes that the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts a periodic survey of consumer expenditures which may be useful for this purpose. The Bureau invites comment on whether the example should identify consideration of a consumer's income, location, and household size as an important aspect of the method.

The second method is to obtain additional reliable information about a consumer's expenses other than the information required to be obtained under § 1041.9(c), to develop a reasonably accurate estimate of a consumer's basic living expenses. The example would not mean that a lender is required to obtain this information but would clarify that doing so may be one effective method of estimating a consumer's basic living expenses. The method described in the second example may be more convenient for smaller lenders or lenders with no experience working with statistically valid surveys of consumer expenses, as described in the first example.

The third example is any method that reliably predicts basic living expenses. The Bureau is proposing to include this broadly phrased example to clarify that lenders may use innovative and data-driven methods that reliably estimate consumers' basic living expenses, even if the methods are not as intuitive as the methods in the first two examples. The Bureau would expect to evaluate the reliability of such methods by taking into account the performance of the lender's covered longer-term loans, as discussed in proposed comment 9(b)-3.iii.

Proposed comment 9(b)-4 would provide a non-exhaustive list of unreasonable methods of determining basic living expenses. The first example is a method that assumes that a consumer needs no or implausibly low amounts of funds to meet basic living expenses during the applicable period and that, accordingly, substantially all of a consumer's net income that is not required for payments for major financial obligations is available for loan payments. The second example is a method of setting minimum percentages of income or dollar amounts that, when used in ability-to-repay determinations for covered longer-term loans, have yielded high rates of default and reborrowing relative to rates of default and reborrowing of other lenders making covered longer-term loans to similarly situated consumers.

The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed requirements for estimating basic living expenses, including the methods identified as reasonable or unreasonable, whether additional methods should be specified, or whether the Bureau should provide either a more prescriptive method for estimating basic living expenses or a safe harbor methodology (and, if so, what that methodology should be). The Bureau also solicits comment on whether lenders should be required to ask consumers to identify, on a written questionnaire that lists common types of basic living expenses, how much they typically spend on each type of expense. The Bureau further solicits comment on whether and how lenders should be required to verify the completeness and correctness of the amounts the consumer lists and how a lender should be required to determine how much of the identified or verified expenditures is necessary or, under the alternative approach to defining basic living expenses discussed above, is recurring and not realistically reducible during the term of the prospective loan.

9(b)(2)

Proposed § 1041.9(b)(2) would set forth the Bureau's specific proposed methodology for making a reasonable determination of a consumer's ability to pay a covered longer-term loan. Specifically, it would provide that a lender's determination of a consumer's ability to repay is reasonable only if, based on projections in accordance with § 1041.9(c), the lender reasonably makes the applicable determinations provided in §§ 1041.9(b)(2)(i) and (iii). Section 1041.9(b)(2)(i) would require an assessment of the sufficiency of the consumer's residual income during the term of the loan, while § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii) requires assessment of an additional period in light of the special harms associated with loans with balloon-payment structures.

Section 1041.9(b)(2)(iii) would require compliance with additional requirements in proposed § 1041.10 in situations in which the consumer's borrowing history suggests that he or she may have difficulty repaying additional credit.

9(b)(2)(i)

Proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i) would provide that for any covered longer-term loan subject to the ability-to-repay requirement of § 1041.9, a lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make all payments under the covered longer-term loan and to meet basic living expenses during the term of covered longer-term loan. As defined in proposed § 1041.9(a)(6) residual income is the amount of a consumer's net income during a period that is not already committed to payments under major financial obligations during the period. If the payments for a covered longer-term loan would consume so much of a consumer's residual income that the consumer would be unable to meet basic living expenses, then the consumer would likely suffer injury from default or reborrowing or suffer collateral harms from unaffordable payments.

In proposing § 1041.9(b)(2)(i) the Bureau recognizes that, even when lenders determine at the time of consummation that consumers will have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan, some consumers may still face difficulty making payments under covered longer-term loans because of changes that occur after consummation. For example, some consumers would experience unforeseen decreases in income or increases in expenses that would leave them unable to repay their loans. Thus, the fact that a consumer ended up in default is not, in and of itself, evidence that the lender failed to make a reasonable assessment of the consumer's ability to repay ex ante. Rather, proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i) looks to the facts as reasonably knowable prior to consummation and would mean that a lender is prohibited from making a covered longer-term loan subject to § 1041.9 if there is not a reasonable basis at consummation for concluding that the consumer will be able to make payments under the covered longer-term loan while also meeting the consumer's major financial obligations and meeting basic living expenses.

While some consumers may have so little (or no) residual income as to be unable to afford any loan, for other consumers the ability to repay will depend on the amount and timing of the required repayments. Thus, even if a lender concludes that there is not a reasonable basis for believing that a consumer can pay a particular prospective loan, proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i) would not prevent a lender from making a different covered longer-term loan with more affordable payments to such a consumer, provided that the more affordable payments would not consume so much of a consumer's residual income that the consumer would be unable to meet basic living expenses and provided further that the alternative loan is consistent with applicable State law.

Applicable Period for Residual Income

As discussed above, under proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i) a lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make all payments under the covered longer-term loan and to meet basic living expenses during the term of the covered longer-term loan. To provide greater certainty, facilitate compliance, and reduce burden, the Bureau is proposing comment 9(b)(2)(i)-1.i to explain how lenders could comply with § 1041.9(b)(2)(i).

Proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-1 would provide that for a covered longer-term loan, a lender complies with the requirement in § 1041.9(b)(2)(i) if it reasonably determines that for the month with the highest sum of payments (if applicable) under the covered longer-term loan, the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make the payments and to meet basic living expenses during that month. The method of compliance in proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-1.i would allow a lender to make one determination using the sum of all payments due in the month, rather than having to make a separate determination for, for example, each payment period. For loans longer than 45 days, the Bureau believes that the particular number and amount of net income payments and payments for major financial obligations that will accrue following consummation and before a payment due date is less instructive for determining sufficiency of the consumer's residual income, compared to when a loan is less than 45 days. (See section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.5(b)(2), above.) Accordingly, proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-1.i would allow a lender to apply the determination (i.e., that residual income for a period will be sufficient for the consumer to make prospective loan payments during the period while meeting basic living expenses during the period) to a monthly period. However, because some covered longer-term loans may have payment structures that cause higher payments, or a higher number of payments, to fall due within one month versus other months during the term of the covered longer-term loan, proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-1.i specifies that the determination applies to the month with the highest sum of payments, if applicable. If the same sum of payments would be due in each month, or if the highest sum of payments applies to more than one month, the lender could make the determination for any such month. Proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-1.i includes an example applying the method of compliance to a covered loan with six biweekly payments, the last of which is higher than the first five biweekly payments.

The Bureau believes that, in general, a lender's projection of a consumer's residual income in compliance with proposed § 1041.9(c) for a covered longer-term loan will not vary from payment period to payment period. Thus, if the consumer's projected residual income for the month with the highest sum of payments will be sufficient for the consumer to make those payments while also meeting basic living expenses during that month, then that fact is generally sufficient to infer that the same would be true for other months as well. Such an inference would not necessarily be supported, however, if, to reach a conclusion that the consumer will have sufficient residual income in the month with the highest sum of payments, the lender relies on a projected increase in the consumer's residual income during the term of the loan (e.g., a projected spike in a consumer's net income coinciding with the month when the highest payment is due). In that case, even if the projected spike were itself reasonable, there would not necessarily be a reasonable basis to infer that the consumer would also have sufficient residual income in other months (e.g., when the consumer's net income is projected to be lower) for the consumer to make the sum of lower payments due in that month. Accordingly, proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-1.i would clarify that the method of compliance it describes is not applicable if the lender's determination relies on a projected increase in the consumer's residual income during the term of the loan. In that case, to comply with proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i), the lender would be have to use some other method to determine that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make all payments under the covered longer-term loan and to meet basic living expenses during the term of covered longer-term loan.

The Bureau invites comment on all aspects of its proposed applicable time periods for assessing residual income.

Sufficiency of Residual Income; Accounting for Volatility in Net Income and Basic Living Expenses

As discussed above, under proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i) a lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient for the consumer to make all payments under the covered longer-term loan and to meet basic living expenses during the term of the covered longer-term loan. Proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-2 would clarify what constitutes “sufficient” residual income for a covered longer-term loan.

For a covered longer-term loan, proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-2.i would provide that the determination of “sufficient” residual income requires a lender to reasonably account for the possibility of volatility in the consumer's residual income and basic living expenses over the term of the loan. It clarifies that reasonably accounting for volatility requires considering the length of the covered longer-term loan term because the longer the term of a covered longer-term loan, the greater the possibility that residual income could decrease or basic living expenses could increase at some point during the term of the covered longer-term loan, increasing the risk that the consumer's residual income will be insufficient at some point during the term of the covered longer-term loan.

Proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-2.i identifies two ways that a lender reasonably accounts for the possibility of volatility in a consumer's residual income or basic living expenses. First, it provides that a lender does so by reasonably determining an amount (i.e., a “cushion”) by which the consumer's residual income must exceed the sum of the loan payments under the covered longer-term loan and of the amount needed for basic living expenses. It clarifies that a cushion is reasonably determined if it is large enough so that a consumer would have sufficient residual income to make payments under the covered longer-term loan despite volatility in net income or basic living expenses experienced by similarly situated consumers during a similar period of time. Second, proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-2.i provides that a lender also reasonably accounts for the possibility of volatility in consumer income by reasonably determining that a particular consumer is unlikely to experience such volatility notwithstanding the experience of otherwise similarly situated consumers during a similar period of time, such as if a consumer has stable employment and receives a salary and sick leave and health insurance.

The provision in proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-2.i requiring a lender to account for volatility does not mean that a lender must provide a cushion that is so large that it could shield a consumer from extraordinary shocks in income or basic living expenses, such as those resulting from job loss or medical bills from catastrophic illness. But occasional reductions in hours (and resulting earnings) or occasional spikes in expenses (such as an occasional spike in a utility bill) are very much to be expected over the course of a longer-term loan. Thus proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-2.i provides that for a covered longer-term loan, it is not reasonable to assume that the consumer has the ability to make all of the required payments under the loan if a consumer who experiences ordinary volatility in income or basic living expenses would not have sufficient residual income so that, after making loan payments under the covered longer-term loan, she would be able to meet basic living expenses. The Bureau's outreach found that that at least two lenders that currently undertake ability-to-repay determinations already impliedly or expressly consider volatility of consumer income and expenses in determining what loan payments a consumer can afford.

The Bureau invites comment on all aspects of its proposal for accounting for volatility in projected net income and basic living expenses, including whether lenders can reasonably account for volatility in income and basic living expenses and, if so, whether additional specificity should be provided as to how to do so. The Bureau also invites comment on whether there are other circumstances, other than the duration of a loan, that should affect how lenders account for volatility.

9(b)(2)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii) would provide that for a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan subject to the ability-to-repay requirement of § 1041.9, a lender must reasonably conclude that the consumer will be able to make payments required for major financial obligations as they fall due, to make any remaining payments under the covered longer-term balloon-payment loan, and to meet basic living expenses for 30 days after having made the highest payment under the covered longer-term loan on its due date. Proposed comment 9(b)(2)(ii)-1 notes that a lender must include in its determination under § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii) the amount and timing of net income that it projects the consumer will receive during the 30-day period following the highest payment, in accordance with § 1041.9(c). Proposed comment 9(b)(2)(ii)-1 also includes an example of a covered longer-term loan for which a lender could not make a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay under § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii).

The Bureau proposes to include the requirement in § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii) for covered longer-term balloon-payment loans because the Bureau's research has found that these loan structures are particularly likely to result in reborrowing around the time that a balloon payment is due. When a covered longer-term loan's terms provide for repayment under a schedule that includes a payment that is much larger than the other payments, the fact that the consumer must repay so much or at one time makes it especially likely that the consumer will be left with insufficient funds to make subsequent payments under major financial obligations and to meet basic living expenses. The consumer may then end up falling behind on payments under major financial obligations, being unable to meet basic living expenses, or borrowing additional consumer credit. Such consumers may be particularly likely to borrow new consumer credit in the form of a new covered longer-term loan.

This shortfall in a consumer's funds is most likely to occur following the highest payment under the covered longer-term loan (which is typically but not necessarily the final payment) and before the consumer's subsequent receipt of significant income. However, depending on regularity of a consumer's income payments and payment amounts, the point within a consumer's monthly expense cycle when the problematic covered longer-term loan payment falls due, and the distribution of a consumer's expenses through the month, the resulting shortfall may not manifest until a consumer has attempted to meet all expenses in the consumer's monthly expense cycle. Indeed, as noted in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans, many payday loan borrowers who repay a first loan and do not reborrow during the ensuing pay cycle (i.e., within 14 days) nonetheless do find it necessary to reborrow before the end of the expense cycle (i.e., within 30 days).

In the Small Business Review Panel Outline, the Bureau described a proposal to require lenders to determine that a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered short-term loan without needing to reborrow for 60 days, consistent with the its proposal in the same document to treat a loan taken within 60 days of having a prior covered short-term loan outstanding as part of the same sequence. Several consumer advocates have argued that consumers may be able to juggle expenses and financial obligations for a time, so that an unaffordable loan may not result in reborrowing until after a 30-day period. For the reasons discussed further above in the section-by-section analyses of § 1041.6, the Bureau is now proposing a 30-day period for both purposes.

The Bureau believes that the incidence of reborrowing caused by balloon-payment loan structures would be somewhat ameliorated simply by determining that a consumer will have residual income during the term of the loan that exceeds the sum of covered longer-term loan payments plus an amount necessary to meet basic living expenses during that period. But if the loan payments consume all of a consumer's residual income during the period other than the amount needed to meet basic living expenses during the period, then the consumer will be left with insufficient funds to make payments under major financial obligations and meet basic living expenses after the end of that period, unless the consumer receives sufficient net income shortly after the end of that period and before the next set of expenses fall due. Often, though, the opposite is true: A lender schedules the due dates of loan payments under covered longer-term loans so that the loan payment due date coincides with dates of the consumer's receipts of income. This practice maximizes the probability that the lender will timely receive the payment under the covered longer-term loan, but it also means the term of the loan (as well as the relevant period for the lender's determination that the consumer's residual income will be sufficient under proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i)) ends on the date of the consumer's receipt of income, with the result that the time between the end of the loan term and the consumer's subsequent receipt of income is maximized.

Thus, even if a lender made a reasonable determination under proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(i) that the consumer would have sufficient residual income during the loan term to make loan payments under the covered longer-term balloon-payment loan and meet basic living expenses during the period, there would remain a significant risk that, as a result of an unaffordable highest payment, the consumer would be forced to reborrow or suffer collateral harms from unaffordable payments. The example included in proposed comment 9(b)(2)(ii)-1 illustrates just such a result.

The Bureau invites comment on the necessity of the requirement in proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii) to prevent consumer harms and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing burden for lenders. The Bureau also invites comment on whether the 30-day period in proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii) is the appropriate period of time to use or whether a shorter or longer period of time, such as the 60-day period described in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, would be appropriate. The Bureau also invites comment on whether the time period chosen should run from the date of the final payment, rather than the highest payment, in cases where the highest payment is other than the final payment.

9(b)(2)(iii)

Proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(iii) would provide that for a covered longer-term loan for which a presumption of unaffordability applies under § 1041.10, the lender must determine that the requirements of proposed § 1041.10 are satisfied. As discussed below, proposed § 1041.10 would apply certain presumptions and requirements when the consumer's borrowing history indicates that he or she may have particular difficulty in repaying a new covered longer-term loan with certain payment amounts or structures.

9(c) Projecting Consumer Net Income and Payments for Major Financial Obligations

Proposed § 1041.9(c) provides requirements that would apply to a lender's projections of net income and major financial obligations, which in turn serve as the basis for the lender's reasonable determination of ability to repay. Specifically, it would establish requirements for obtaining information directly from a consumer as well as specified types of verification evidence. It would also provide requirements for reconciling ambiguities and inconsistencies in the information and verification evidence.

9(c)(1) General

As discussed above, § 1041.9(b)(2) would provide that a lender's determination of a consumer's ability to repay is reasonable only if the lender determines that the consumer will have sufficient residual income during the term of the loan to repay the loan and still meet basic living expenses. Proposed § 1041.9(b)(2) thus carries with it the requirement for a lender to make projections with respect to the consumer's net income and major financial obligations—the components of residual income—during the relevant period of time. Proposed § 1041.9(b)(2) further provides that to be reasonable such projections must be made in accordance with proposed § 1041.9(c).

Proposed § 1041.9(c)(1) would provide that for a lender's projection of the amount and timing of net income or payments for major financial obligations to be reasonable, the lender must obtain both a written statement from the consumer as provided for in proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(i), and verification evidence as provided for in proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii), each of which are discussed below. Proposed § 1041.9(c)(1) further provides that for a lender's projection of the amount and timing of net income or payments for major financial obligations to be reasonable it may be based on a consumer's statement of the amount and timing only to the extent the stated amounts and timing are consistent with the verification evidence.

The Bureau believes verification of consumers' net income and payments for major financial obligations is an important component of the reasonable ability-to-repay determination. Consumers seeking a loan may be in financial distress and inclined to overestimate net income or to underestimate payments under major financial obligations to improve their chances of being approved. Lenders have an incentive to encourage such misestimates to the extent that as a result consumers find it necessary to reborrow. This result is especially likely if a consumer perceives that, for any given loan amount, lenders offer only one-size-fits-all loan repayment structure and will not offer an alternative loan with payments that are within the consumer's ability to repay. An ability-to-repay determination that is based on unrealistic factual assumptions will yield unrealistic and unreliable results, leading to the consumer harms that the Bureau's proposal is intended to prevent.

Accordingly, proposed § 1041.9(c)(1) would permit a lender to base its projection of the amount and timing of a consumer's net income or payments under major financial obligations on a consumer's written statement of amounts and timing under § 1041.9(c)(3)(i) only to the extent the stated amounts and timing are consistent with verification evidence of the type specified in § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii). Proposed § 1041.9(c)(1) would further provide that in determining whether and the extent to which such stated amounts and timing are consistent with verification evidence, a lender may reasonably consider other reliable evidence the lender obtains from or about the consumer, including any explanations the lender obtains from the consumer. The Bureau believes the proposed approach would appropriately ensure that the projections of a consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations will generally be supported by objective, third-party documentation or other records.

However, the proposed approach also recognizes that reasonably available verification evidence may sometimes contain ambiguous, out-of-date, or missing information. For example, the net income of consumers who seek covered longer-term loans may have varied over a period preceding the prospective covered longer-term loans, such as for a consumer who is paid an hourly wage and whose work hours vary from week to week. In fact, a consumer is more likely to experience financial distress, which may be a consumer's reason for seeking a covered longer-term loan, immediately following a temporary decrease in net income from their more typical levels. As a result, a lender's compliance with proposed § 1041.9(c)(1) would often mean it must project a consumer's likely or typical level of net income during the term of the prospective covered longer-term loan, based in part on varying recent net income receipts shown in the verification evidence. Accordingly, the proposed approach would not require a lender to base its projections exclusively on the consumer's most recent net income receipt shown in the verification evidence. Instead, it allows the lender reasonable flexibility in the inferences the lender draws about, for example, a consumer's net income during the term of the covered longer-term loan, based on the consumer's net income payments shown in the verification evidence, including net income for periods earlier than the most recent net income receipt. At the same time, the proposed approach would not allow a lender to mechanically assume that a consumer's immediate past income as shown in the verification evidence will continue into the future if, for example, the lender has reason to believe that the consumer has been laid off or is no longer employed. As discussed above, proposed comment 9(b)(2)(i)-2 addresses the proposed requirement for a lender to reasonably account for the possibility of volatility in a consumer's residual income (and basic living expenses), as would occur for a consumer whose net income may vary from a lender's reasonable projection of net income in accordance with proposed 1041.9(c)(1).

In this regard, the proposed approach recognizes that a consumer's own statements, explanations, and other evidence are important components of a reliable projection of future net income and payments for major financial obligations. Proposed comment 9(c)(1)-1 includes several examples applying the proposed provisions to various scenarios, illustrating reliance on consumer statements to the extent they are consistent with verification evidence and how a lender may reasonably consider consumer explanations to resolve ambiguities in the verification evidence. It includes examples of when a major financial obligation in a consumer report is greater than the amount stated by the consumer and of when a major financial obligation stated by the consumer does not appear in the consumer report at all. The examples do not address compliance or noncompliance with the proposed requirement in § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii) for a lender to obtain a reliable records covering “sufficient” history of income payments.

The Bureau anticipates that lenders would develop policies and procedures, in accordance with proposed § 1041.18, for how they project consumer net income and payments for major financial obligations in compliance with proposed § 1041.9(c)(1) and that a lender's policies and procedures would reflect its business model and practices, including the particular methods it uses to obtain consumer statements and verification evidence. The Bureau believes that many lenders and vendors would develop methods of automating projections, so that for a typical consumer, relatively little labor would be required.

The Bureau invites comment on the proposed approach to verification and to making projections based upon verified evidence, including whether the Bureau should permit projections that vary from the most recent verification evidence and, if so, whether the Bureau should be more prescriptive with respect to the permissible range of such variances.

9(c)(2) Changes Not Supported by Verification Evidence

Proposed § 1041.9(c)(2) would provide an exception to the requirement in § 1041.9(c)(1) that projections must be consistent with the verification evidence that a lender would be required to obtain under proposed 1041.9(c)(3)(ii). As discussed below, the required verification evidence will normally consist of third-party documentation or other reliable records of recent transactions or of payment amounts. Proposed § 1041.9(c)(2) would permit a lender to project a net income amount that is higher than an amount that would otherwise be supported under § 1041.9(c)(1), or a payment amount under a major financial obligation that is lower than an amount that would otherwise be supported under § 1041.9(c)(1), only to the extent and for such portion of the term of the loan that the lender obtains a written statement from the payer of the income or the payee of the consumer's major financial obligation of the amount and timing of the new or changed net income or payment. The exception would accommodate situations in which a consumer's net income or payment for a major financial obligation will differ from the amount supportable by the verification evidence. For example, a consumer who has been unemployed for an extended period of time but who just accepted a new job may not be able to provide the type of verification evidence of net income generally required under proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(A). Proposed § 1041.9(c)(2) would permit a lender to project a net income amount based on, for example, an offer letter from the new employer stating the consumer's wage, work hours per week, and frequency of pay. The lender would be required to retain the statement in accordance with proposed § 1041.18.

The Bureau invites comment as to whether lenders should be permitted to rely on such evidence in projecting residual income.

9(c)(3) Evidence of Net Income and Payments for Major Financial Obligations

9(c)(3)(i) Consumer Statements

Proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(i) would require a lender to obtain a consumer's written statement of the amount and timing of the consumer's net income, as well as of the amount and timing of payments required for categories of the consumer's major financial obligations (e.g., credit card payments, automobile loan payments, housing expense payments, child support payments, etc.). The lender would then use the statements as an input in projecting the consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations during the term of the loan. The lender would also be required to retain the statements in accordance with proposed § 1041.18. As discussed above, the Bureau believes it is important to require lenders to obtain this information directly from consumers in addition to obtaining reasonably available verification evidence under proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii) because the latter sources of information may sometimes contain ambiguous, out-of-date, or missing information. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that projections based on both sources of information will be more reliable than either one standing alone.

Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(i)-1 clarifies that a consumer's written statement includes a statement the consumer writes on a paper application or enters into an electronic record, or an oral consumer statement that the lender records and retains or memorializes in writing and retains. It further clarifies that a lender complies with a requirement to obtain the consumer's statement by obtaining information sufficient for the lender to project the dates on which a payment will be received or paid through the period required under § 1041.9(b)(2). Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(i)-1 includes the example that a lender's receipt of a consumer's statement that the consumer is required to pay rent every month on the first day of the month is sufficient for the lender to project when the consumer's rent payments are due. Proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(i) would not specify any particular form or even particular questions or particular words that a lender must use to obtain the required consumer statements.

The Bureau invites comment on whether to require a lender to obtain a written statement from the consumer with respect to the consumer's income and major financial obligations, including whether the Bureau should establish any procedural requirements with respect to securing such a statement and the weight that should be given to such a statement. The Bureau also invites comments on whether a written memorialization by the lender of a consumer's oral statement should not be considered sufficient.

9(c)(3)(ii) Verification Evidence

Proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii) would require a lender to obtain verification evidence for the amounts and timing of the consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations for a period of time prior to consummation. It would specify the type of verification evidence required for net income and each component of major financial obligations. The proposed requirements are intended to provide reasonable assurance that the lender's projections of a consumer's net income and payments for major financial obligations are based on accurate and objective information, while also allowing lenders to adopt innovative, automated, and less burdensome methods of compliance. A lender making a covered longer-term loan within 30 days of the borrower having an outstanding covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan would also be, in certain circumstances, required under proposed § 1041.10 to obtain verification evidence for components of residual income that a consumer states have changed since obtaining the preceding loan or for certain prior loans relative to the components of residual income for the prior 30 days.

9(c)(3)(ii)(A)

Proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(A) would specify that for a consumer's net income, the applicable verification evidence would be a reliable record (or records) of an income payment (or payments) covering sufficient history to support the lender's projection under § 1041.9(c)(1). It would not specify a minimum look-back period or number of net income payments for which the lender must obtain verification evidence. The Bureau believes that, generally, the term of a loan will affect the period of time for which a lender will need verification evidence in order reasonably to project the consumer's net income. However, the Bureau does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to require verification evidence covering a lookback period of a prescribed length. Rather, sufficiency of the history for which a lender obtains verification evidence may depend upon the term of the prospective covered longer-term loan and the consistency of the income shown in the verification evidence the lender initially obtains. For example, a lender's normal practice in making loans for six-month terms may be to obtain verification evidence showing the consumer's three most recent receipts of net income. But if there is significant variation in a particular consumer's three most recent receipts of net income, simply projecting income based on the highest of the three would generally not comply with proposed § 1041.9(c)(1). (See the example in proposed comment 9(c)(1)-D.) A lender's examination of additional receipts of consumer net income might show that the highest of the three most recent receipts of net income initially examined is in fact typical for that consumer and that the lower amounts were aberrational. In that case, the lender may be able to reasonably project income based on that highest of the three most recent amounts, for the reason that the combination of the initial and additional receipts of consumer net income the lender examines is sufficient to support the lender's projection of net income. On the other hand, for a consumer who recently started a new job and has received only one salary payment, verification evidence showing the amount and timing of the payment may be sufficient to support the lender's projection. Lenders would be required to develop and maintain policies and procedures for establishing the sufficient history of net income payments in verification evidence tailored to the covered longer-term loans they make, in accordance with proposed § 1041.18.

Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(ii)(A)-1 would clarify that a reliable transaction record includes a facially genuine original, photocopy, or image of a document produced by or on behalf of the payer of income, or an electronic or paper compilation of data included in such a document, stating the amount and date of the income paid to the consumer. It would further clarify that a reliable transaction record also includes a facially genuine original, photocopy, or image of an electronic or paper record of depository account transactions, prepaid account transactions (including transactions on a general purpose reloadable prepaid card account, a payroll card account, or a government benefits card account), or money services business check-cashing transactions showing the amount and date of a consumer's receipt of income.

The Bureau believes that the proposed requirement would be sufficiently flexible to provide lenders with multiple options for obtaining verification evidence for a consumer's net income. For example, a paper paystub would generally satisfy the requirement, as would a photograph of the paystub uploaded from a mobile phone to an online lender. In addition, the requirement would also be satisfied by use of a commercial service that collects payroll data from employers and provides it to creditors for purposes of verifying a consumer's employment and income. Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(ii)(A)-1 would also allow verification evidence in the form of electronic or paper bank account statements or records showing deposits into the account, as well as electronic or paper records of deposits onto a prepaid card or of check-cashing transactions. Data derived from such sources, such as from account data aggregator services that obtain and categorize consumer deposit account and other account transaction data, would also generally satisfy the requirement. During outreach, service providers informed the Bureau that they currently provide such services to lenders.

Several SERs expressed concern during the SBREFA process that the Bureau's approach to income verification described in the Small Business Review Panel Outline was too burdensome and inflexible. Several other lender representatives expressed similar concerns during the Bureau's outreach to industry. Many perceived that the Bureau would require outmoded or burdensome methods of obtaining verification evidence, such as always requiring a consumer to submit a paper paystub or transmit it by facsimile (fax) to a lender. Others expressed concern about the Bureau requiring income verification at all, stating that many consumers are paid in cash and therefore have no employer-generated records of income.

The Bureau's proposed approach is intended to respond to many of these concerns by providing for a wide range of methods for obtaining verification evidence for a consumer's net income, including electronic methods that can be securely automated through third-party vendors with a consumer's consent. In developing this proposal, Bureau staff met with dozens of lenders, nearly all of which stated they already use some method—though not necessarily the precise methods the Bureau is proposing—to verify consumers' income as a condition of making a covered longer-term loan. The Bureau's proposed approach thus accommodates most of the methods they described and that the Bureau is aware of from other research and outreach. It is also intended to provide some accommodation for making covered longer-term loans to many consumers who are paid in cash. For example, under the Bureau's proposed approach, a lender may be able to obtain verification evidence of net income for a consumer who is paid in cash by using deposit account records (or data derived from deposit account transactions), if the consumer deposits income payments into a deposit account. Lenders often require consumers to have deposit accounts as a condition of obtaining a covered longer-term loan, so the Bureau believes that lenders would be able to obtain verification evidence for many consumers who are paid in cash in this manner.

The Bureau recognizes that there are some consumers who receive a portion of their income in cash and also do not deposit their cash income into a deposit account or prepaid card account. For such consumers, a lender may not be able to obtain verification evidence for that portion of a consumer's net income, and therefore generally could not base its projections and ability-to-repay determinations on that portion of such consumers' income. The Bureau, however, does not believe it is appropriate to make an ability-to-repay determination for a covered longer-term loan based on income that cannot be reasonably substantiated through any verification evidence. When there is no verification evidence for a consumer's net income, the Bureau believes the risk is too great that projections of net income would be overstated and that payments under a covered longer-term loan consequently would exceed the consumer's ability to repay, resulting in the harms targeted by this proposal.

For similar reasons, the Bureau is not proposing to permit the use of predictive models designed to estimate a consumer's income or to validate the reasonableness of a consumer's statement of her income. Given the risks associated with unaffordable loan payments, the Bureau believes that such models—which the Bureau believes typically are used to estimate annual income—lack the precision required to reasonably project an individual consumer's net income for a short period of time.

The Bureau notes that it has received recommendations from the Small Dollar Roundtable, comprised of a number of lenders making loans the Bureau proposes to cover in this rulemaking and a number of consumer advocates, recommending that the Bureau require income verification as provided for above.

The Bureau invites comment on the types of verification evidence permitted by the proposed rule and what, if any, other types of verification evidence should be permitted, especially types of verification evidence that would be at least as objective and reliable as the types provided for in proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(A) and comment 9(c)(3)(ii)(A)-1. For example, the Bureau is aware of service providers who are seeking to develop methods to verify a consumer's stated income based upon extrinsic data about the consumer or the area in which the consumer lives. The Bureau invites comment on the reliability of such methods, their ability to provide information that is sufficiently current and granular to address a consumer's stated income for a particular and short period of time, and, if they are able to do so, whether income amounts determined under such methods should be a permissible as a form of verification evidence. The Bureau also invites comments on whether the requirements for verification evidence should be relaxed for a consumer whose principal income is documented but who reports some amount of supplemental cash income and, if so, what approach would be appropriate to guard against the risk of consumers overstating their income and obtaining an unaffordable loan.

9(c)(3)(ii)(B)

Proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(B) would specify that for a consumer's required payments under debt obligations, the applicable verification evidence would be a national consumer report, the records of the lender and its affiliates, and a consumer report obtained from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or § 1041.17(d)(2), if available. The Bureau believes that most typical consumer debt obligations other than covered loans would appear in a national consumer report. Many covered loans are not included in reports generated by the national consumer reporting agencies, so the lender would also be required to obtain, as verification evidence, a consumer report from a designated reporting system. As discussed above, § 1041.9(c)(1) would permit a lender to base its projections on consumer statements of amounts and timing of payments for major financial obligations (including debt obligations) only to the extent the statements are consistent with the verification evidence. Proposed comment 9(c)(1)-1 includes examples applying that proposed requirement in scenarios when a major financial obligation shown in the verification evidence is greater than the amount stated by the consumer and of when a major financial obligation stated by the consumer does not appear in the verification evidence at all.

Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(ii)(B)-1 would clarify that the amount and timing of a payment required under a debt obligation are the amount the consumer must pay and the time by which the consumer must pay it to avoid delinquency under the debt obligation in the absence of any affirmative act by the consumer to extend, delay, or restructure the repayment schedule. The Bureau anticipates that in some cases, the national consumer report the lender obtains will not include a particular debt obligation stated by the consumer, or that the national consumer report may include, for example, the payment amount under the debt obligation but not the timing of the payment. Similar anomalies could occur with covered loans and a consumer report obtained from a designated reporting system. To the extent the national consumer report and consumer report from a designated reporting system omit information for a payment under a debt obligation stated by the consumer, the lender would simply base its projections on the amount and timing stated by the consumer.

The Bureau notes that proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(B) does not require a lender to obtain a credit report unless the lender is otherwise prepared to make a loan to a particular consumer. Because obtaining a credit report will add some cost, the Bureau expects that lenders will order such reports only after determining that the consumer otherwise satisfies the ability-to-repay test so as to avoid incurring these costs for applicants who would be declined without regard to the contents of the credit report. For the reasons previously discussed, the Bureau believes that verification evidence is critical to ensuring that consumers in fact have the ability to repay a loan, and that therefore the costs are justified to achieve the objectives of the proposal.

The Bureau invites comment on whether to require lenders to obtain credit reports from a national credit reporting agency and from a registered information system. In particular, and in accordance with the recommendation of the Small Business Review Panel, the Bureau invites comment on ways of reducing the operational burden for small businesses of verifying consumers' payments under major financial obligations.

9(c)(3)(ii)(C)

Proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(C) would specify that for a consumer's required payments under court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations, the applicable verification evidence would be a national consumer report, which also serves as verification evidence for a consumer's required payments under debt obligations, in accordance with proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(B). The Bureau anticipates that some required payments under court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations will not appear in a national consumer report. To the extent the national consumer report omits information for a required payment, the lender could simply base its projections on the amount and timing stated by the consumer, if any. The Bureau intends this clarification to address concerns from some lenders, including from SERs, that a requirement to obtain verification evidence for payments under court- or government agency-ordered child support obligations from sources other than a national consumer report would be onerous and create uncertainty.

9(c)(3)(ii)(D)

Proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(D) would specify that for a consumer's housing expense (other than a payment for a debt obligation that appears on a national consumer report obtained by the lender), the applicable verification evidence would be either a reliable transaction record (or records) of recent housing expense payments or a lease, or an amount determined under a reliable method of estimating a consumer's housing expense based on the housing expenses of consumers with households in the locality of the consumer.

Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1 explains that the proposed provision means a lender would have three methods that it could choose from for complying with the requirement to obtain verification evidence for a consumer's housing expense. Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1.i explains that under the first method, which could be used for a consumer whose housing expense is a mortgage payment, the lender may obtain a national consumer report that includes the mortgage payment. A lender would be required to obtain a national consumer report as verification evidence of a consumer's payments under debt obligations generally, pursuant to § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(B). A lender's compliance with that requirement would satisfy the requirement in proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(D), provided the consumer's housing expense is a mortgage payment and that mortgage payment appears in the national consumer report the lender obtains.

Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1.ii explains that the second method is for the lender to obtain a reliable transaction record (or records) of recent housing expense payments or a rental or lease agreement. It clarifies that for purposes of this method, reliable transaction records include a facially genuine original, photocopy or image of a receipt, cancelled check, or money order, or an electronic or paper record of depository account transactions or prepaid account transactions (including transactions on a general purpose reloadable prepaid card account, a payroll card account, or a government benefits card account), from which the lender can reasonably determine that a payment was for housing expense as well as the date and amount paid by the consumer. This method mirrors options a lender would have for obtaining verification evidence for net income. Accordingly, data derived from a record of depository account transactions or of prepaid account transactions, such as data from account data aggregator services that obtain and categorize consumer deposit account and other account transaction data, would also generally satisfy the requirement. Bureau staff have met with service providers that state that they currently provide services to lenders and are typically able to identify, for example, how much a particular consumer expends on housing expense as well as other categories of expenses.

Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1.iii explains that the third method is for a lender to use an amount determined under a reliable method of estimating a consumer's share of housing expense based on the individual or household housing expenses of similarly situated consumers with households in the locality of the consumer seeking a covered loan. Proposed comment 9(c)(3)(ii)(D)-1.iii provides, as an example, that a lender may use data from a statistical survey, such as the American Community Survey of the United States Census Bureau, to estimate individual or household housing expense in the locality (e.g., in the same census tract) where the consumer resides. It provides that, alternatively, a lender may estimate individual or household housing expense based on housing expense and other data (e.g., residence location) reported by applicants to the lender, provided that it periodically reviews the reasonableness of the estimates that it relies on using this method by comparing the estimates to statistical survey data or by another method reasonably designed to avoid systematic underestimation of consumers' shares of housing expense. It further explains that a lender may estimate a consumer's share of household expense based on estimated household housing expense by reasonably apportioning the estimated household housing expense by the number of persons sharing housing expense as stated by the consumer, or by another reasonable method.

Several SERs expressed concern during the SBREFA process that the Bureau's approach to housing expense verification described in the Small Business Review Panel Outline was burdensome and impracticable for many consumers and lenders. Several lender representatives expressed similar concerns during the Bureau's outreach to industry. The Small Business Review Panel Outline referred to lender verification of a consumer's rent or mortgage payment using, for example, receipts, cancelled checks, a copy of a lease, and bank account records. But some SERs and other lender representatives stated many consumers would not have these types of documents readily available. Few consumers receive receipts or cancelled checks for rent or mortgage payments, they stated, and bank account statements may simply state the check number used to make a payment, providing no way of confirming the purpose or nature of the payment. Consumers with a lease would not typically have a copy of the lease with them when applying for a covered loan, they stated, and subsequently locating and transmitting or delivering a copy of the lease to a lender would be unduly burdensome, if not impracticable, for both consumers and lenders.

The Bureau believes that many consumers would have paper or electronic records that they could provide to a lender to establish their housing expense. In addition, as discussed above, information presented to the Bureau during outreach suggests that data aggregator services may be able to electronically and securely obtain and categorize, with a consumer's consent, the consumer's deposit account or other account transaction data to reliably identify housing expenses payments and other categories of expenses.

Nonetheless, the Bureau intends its proposal to be responsive to these concerns by providing lenders with multiple options for obtaining verification evidence for a consumer's housing expense, including by using estimates based on the housing expenses of similarly situated consumers with households in the locality of the consumer seeking a covered loans. The Bureau's proposal also is intended to facilitate automation of the methods of obtaining the verification evidence, making projections of a consumer's housing expense, and calculating the amounts for an ability-to-repay determination, such as residual income.

A related concern raised by some SERs is that a consumer may be the person legally obligated to make a rent or mortgage payment but may receive contributions toward it from other household members, so that the payment the consumer makes, even if the consumer can produce a record of it, is much greater than the consumer's own housing expense. Similarly, a consumer may make payments in cash to another person, who then makes the payment to a landlord or mortgage servicer covering the housing expenses of several residents. During outreach with industry, one lender stated that many of its consumers would find requests for documentation of housing expense to be especially intrusive or offensive, especially consumers with informal arrangements to pay rent for a room in someone else's home.

To address these concerns, the Bureau is proposing the option of estimating a consumer's housing expense based on the individual or apportioned household housing expenses of similarly situated consumers with households in the locality. The Bureau believes the proposed approach would address the concerns raised by SERs and other lenders while also reasonably accounting for the portion of a consumer's net income that is consumed by housing expenses and, therefore, not available for payments under a prospective loan. The Bureau notes that if the method the lender uses to obtain verification evidence of housing expense for a consumer—including the estimated method—indicates a higher housing expense amount than the amount in the consumer's statement under proposed § 1041.9(c)(3)(i), then proposed § 1041.9(c)(1) would generally require a lender to rely on the higher amount indicated by the verification evidence. Accordingly, a lender may prefer use one of the other two methods for obtaining verification evidence, especially if doing so would result in verification evidence indicating a housing expense equal to that in the consumer's written statement of housing expense.

The Bureau recognizes that in some cases the consumer's actual housing expense may be lower than the estimation methodology would suggest but may not be verifiable through documentation. For example, some consumers may live for a period of time rent-free with a friend or relative. However, the Bureau does not believe it is possible to accommodate such situations without permitting lenders to rely solely on the consumer's statement of housing expenses, and for the reasons previously discussed the Bureau believes that doing so would jeopardize the objectives of the proposal. The Bureau notes that the approach it is proposing is consistent with the recommendation of the Small Dollar Roundtable which recommended that the Bureau permit rent to be verified through a “geographic market-specific . . .valid, reliable proxy.”

The Bureau invites comment on whether the proposed methods of obtaining verification evidence for housing expense are appropriate and adequate.

§ 1041.10 Additional Limitations on Lending—Covered Longer-Term Loans

Background

Proposed § 1041.10 would augment the basic ability-to-repay determination required by proposed § 1041.9 in circumstances in which the consumer's recent borrowing history or current difficulty repaying an outstanding loan provides important evidence with respect to the consumer's financial capacity to afford a new covered longer-term loan. In these circumstances, proposed § 1041.10 would require the lender to factor this evidence into the ability-to-repay determination. The Bureau proposes the additional requirements in § 1041.10 for the same basic reason that it proposes § 1041.9: to prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8, and the consumer injury that results from it. The Bureau believes that these additional requirements may be needed in circumstances in which proposed § 1041.9 alone may not be sufficient to prevent a lender from making a covered longer-term loan that the consumer might not have the ability to repay.

Proposed § 1041.10 would generally impose a presumption of unaffordability on continued lending where evidence suggests that the prior or outstanding loan was not affordable for the consumer, such that the consumer may have particular difficulty repaying a new covered longer-term loan. Specifically, such presumptions would apply when a consumer seeks a covered longer-term loan during the term of a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.5 or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made under proposed § 1041.9 and for 30 days thereafter, unless payments on the new covered longer-term loan would meet certain conditions, or seeks to take out a covered longer-term loan when there are indicia that an outstanding loan with the same lender or its affiliate is unaffordable for the consumer. Proposed § 1041.10 would also prohibit lenders from making a covered longer-term loan under proposed § 1041.9 during the term of and shortly following a covered short-term loan made by the same lender or its affiliate under proposed § 1041.7.

The Bureau is proposing a presumption of unaffordability in situations in which the fact that the consumer is seeking to take out a new covered longer-term loan during the term of, or in certain circumstances shortly after repaying, a prior loan with similar payments suggests that the new loan, like the prior loan, will exceed the consumer's ability to repay. As discussed above in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.6, the Bureau believes that the most common explanation when a consumer returns to borrow within 30 days of a prior covered short-term loan is that the prior loan was unaffordable. As discussed further below, the Bureau believes based on its research that it makes sense to apply the same presumption where a borrower returns to borrow within 30 days of a prior covered long-term balloon-payment loan. And as discussed further below, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to apply a presumption where there are indicia that the borrower is already in distress with regard to other types of loans outstanding with the same lender.

The presumption is based on concerns that, in these narrowly-defined circumstances, the prior loan may have triggered the need for the new loan because it exceeded the consumer's ability to repay, and that, absent an increase in residual income or a substantial decrease in the size of the payments on the loan, the new loan will also be unaffordable for the consumer. As with covered short-term loans, the Bureau is concerned that payments on a covered longer-term loan that exceed a consumer's ability to repay will cause the consumer to experience harms associated with defaulting on the loan or satisfying the loan payment but being unable to then meet other financial obligations and basic living expenses.

The presumption can be overcome, however, in circumstances that suggest that there is sufficient reason to believe that the consumer would, in fact, be able to afford the new loan even though he or she is seeking to reborrow during the term of or shortly after a prior loan. The Bureau recognizes, for example, that there may be situations in which the prior loan would have been affordable but for some unforeseen disruption in income or unforeseen increase in major financial obligations that occurred during the prior expense cycle and is not reasonably expected to recur during the underwriting period under § 1041.9 for the new loan. The Bureau also recognizes that there may be circumstances, albeit less common, in which even though the prior loan proved to be unaffordable, a new loan would be affordable because of a reasonably projected increase in net income or decrease in major financial obligations—for example, if the consumer has obtained a second, steady job that will increase the consumer's residual income going forward or the consumer has moved in the prior 30 days and will have lower housing expenses going forward.

Proposed § 1041.10(b) and (c) would define a set of circumstances in which the Bureau believes that consumer's recent borrowing history makes it unlikely that the consumer can afford a new covered longer-term loan on terms similar to a prior or existing loan. In such circumstances, a consumer would be presumed to not have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan under proposed § 1041.9. Proposed § 1041.10(d) would define the additional determinations that a lender would be required to make in cases where the presumption applies in order for the lender's determination under proposed § 1041.9 that the consumer will have the ability to repay a new covered longer-term loan to be reasonable despite the unaffordability of the prior loan. In addition, for the convenience of lenders and so that all restrictions relating to covered longer-term loans made under proposed § 1041.9 are found in one section of the proposed rule, proposed § 1041.10(e) contains a prohibition relating to effectuation of the provisions for making covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7.

The Bureau notes that this overall proposed approach is fairly similar to the framework included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline. There, the Bureau included a presumption of inability to repay for a covered longer-term loan if there are circumstances indicating distress and the new loan is made during the term of a prior loan, whether covered or not, from the same lender or its affiliates, or is made during the term of a prior covered loan from any lender. The Bureau considered a “changed circumstances” standard for overcoming the presumption that would have required lenders to obtain and verify evidence of a change in consumer circumstances indicating that the consumer had the ability to repay the new loan according to its terms. The Bureau also, as noted above, included a 60-day reborrowing period in the Small Business Review Panel Outline.

SERs and other stakeholders that offered feedback on the Outline urged the Bureau to provide greater flexibility with regard to using a presumptions framework to address concerns about repeated borrowing despite the contemplated requirement to determine ability to repay. The SERs and other stakeholders also urged the Bureau to provide greater clarity and flexibility in defining the circumstances that would permit a lender to overcome the presumption of unaffordability.

The Small Business Review Panel Report recommended that the Bureau request comment on whether a loan sequence could be defined with reference to a period shorter than the 60 days under consideration during the SBREFA process. The Small Business Review Panel Report further recommended that the Bureau consider additional approaches to regulation, including whether existing State laws and regulations could provide a model for elements of the Bureau's proposed interventions. In this regard, the Bureau notes that some States have cooling-off periods of one to seven days, as well as longer periods that apply after a longer sequence of loans. The Bureau's prior research has examined the effectiveness of these cooling-off periods and, in the CFPB Report on Supplemental Findings, the Bureau is publishing research showing how different definitions of loan sequence affect the number of loan sequences and the number of loans deemed to be part of a sequence. In the CFPB Report on Supplemental Findings, the Bureau is publishing additional analysis on the impacts of State cooling-off periods. The latter analysis is also discussed in Market Concerns—Short-Term Loans.

The Bureau has made a number of adjustments to the presumptions framework in response to this feedback. For instance, the Bureau is proposing a 30-day reborrowing period rather than a 60-day reborrowing period. The Bureau has also provided greater specificity and flexibility about when a presumption of unaffordability would apply, for example, by proposing certain exceptions to the presumptions of unaffordability. The proposal also would provide somewhat more flexibility about when a presumption of unaffordability could be overcome by permitting lenders to determine that there would be sufficient improvement in financial capacity for the new loan because of a one-time drop in income since obtaining the prior loan (or during the prior 30 days, as applicable). The Bureau has also continued to assess potential alternative approaches to the presumptions framework, discussed below.

The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed presumptions of unaffordability, and other aspects of proposed § 1041.10, including the circumstances in which the presumptions apply (e.g., the appropriate length of the reborrowing period and the appropriateness of other circumstances giving rise to the presumptions) and the requirements for overcoming a presumption of unaffordability. In addition, and consistent with the recommendations of the Small Business Review Panel Report, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the 30-day reborrowing period is appropriate for the presumptions and prohibitions, or whether a longer or shorter period would better address the Bureau's concerns about repeat borrowing.

Alternatives Considered

As with the additional limitations on making a covered short-term loan under § 1041.5 contained in proposed § 1041.6, the Bureau considered a number of alternative approaches to address reborrowing in circumstances indicating that the consumer was unable to afford the prior loan.

The Bureau considered an alternative approach under which, instead of defining the circumstances in which a formal presumption of unaffordability applies and the determinations that a lender must make when such a presumption applies to a transaction, the Bureau would identify circumstances indicative of a consumer's inability to repay that would be relevant to whether a lender's determination under proposed § 1041.9 is reasonable. This approach would likely involve a number of examples of indicia requiring greater caution in underwriting and examples of countervailing factors that might support the reasonableness of a lender's determination that the consumer could repay a subsequent loan despite the presence of such indicia. This alternative approach would be less prescriptive and thus leave more discretion to lenders to make such a determination. However, it would also provide less certainty as to when a lender's particular ability-to-repay determination is reasonable.

In addition, the Bureau has considered whether there is a way to account for unusual expenses within the presumptions framework without creating an exception that would swallow the rule. In particular, the Bureau considered permitting lenders to overcome the presumptions of unaffordability in the event that the consumer provided evidence that the reason the consumer was struggling to repay the outstanding loan or was seeking to reborrow was due to a recent unusual and non-recurring expense. For example, under such an approach, a lender could overcome the presumption of unaffordability by finding that the reason the consumer was seeking a new covered longer-term loan was as a result of a recent emergency car repair, furnace replacement or an unusual medical expense, so long as the expense is not reasonably likely to recur during the period of the new loan. The Bureau considered including such circumstances as an additional example of a situation in which the consumer's financial capacity going forward could be considered to be significantly better than it was during the prior 30 days (or since obtaining the prior loan) as described with regard to proposed § 1041.10(d) below.

While such an addition could provide more flexibility to lenders and to consumers to overcome the presumptions of unaffordability, an unusual and non-recurring expense test would also present several challenges. To effectuate this test, the Bureau would need to define, in ways that lenders could implement, what would be a qualifying “unusual and non-recurring expense,” a means of assessing whether a new loan was attributable to such an expense rather than to the unaffordability of the prior loan, and standards for how such an unusual and non-recurring expense could be documented (e.g., through transaction records). Such a test would have substantial implications for the way in which the ability-to-repay requirements in § 1041.9 address the standards for basic living expenses and accounting for potential volatility over the term of a loan. Most significantly, the Bureau is concerned that if a lender is permitted to overcome the presumption of unaffordability by finding that the consumer faced an unusual and non-recurring expense during repayment of the prior or outstanding loan, this justification would be invoked in cases in which the earlier loan had, in fact, been unaffordable. As discussed above, the fact that a consumer may cite a particular expense shock when seeking to reborrow does not necessarily mean that a recent prior loan was affordable; if a consumer, in fact, lacked the ability to repay the prior loan, it would be a substantial factor in why the consumer could not absorb the expense. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that it may be difficult to parse out causation and to differentiate between types of expense shocks and the reasonableness of lenders' ability-to-repay determinations where such shocks are asserted to have occurred.

In light of these competing considerations, the Bureau has chosen to propose the approach of supplementing the proposed § 1041.9 determination with formal presumptions. The Bureau is, however, broadly seeking comment on alternative approaches to addressing the issue of repeat borrowing in a more flexible manner, including the alternatives described above and on any other framework for assessing consumers' borrowing history as part of an overall determination of ability to repay. Specifically, the Bureau also solicits comment on the alternative of defining indicia of unaffordability, as described above. In addition, the Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether to permit lenders to overcome a presumption of unaffordability by finding that the consumer had experienced an unusual and non-recurring expense and, if so, on measures to address the challenges described above.

Legal Authority

As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.8 above, the Bureau believes that it may be an unfair and abusive practice to make a covered longer-term loan without determining that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan. Accordingly, in order to prevent that unfair and abusive practice, proposed § 1041.9 would require lenders prior to making a covered longer-term loan—other than a loan made under a conditional exemption to the ability-to-repay requirements in § 1041.11 or § 1041.12—to make a reasonable determination that the consumer will have sufficient income, after meeting major financial obligations, to make payments under a prospective covered longer-term loan and to continue meeting basic living expenses. Proposed § 1041.10 would augment the basic ability-to-repay determination required by proposed § 1041.9 in circumstances in which the consumer's recent borrowing history or current difficulty repaying an outstanding loan provides important evidence with respect to the consumer's financial capacity to afford a new covered longer-term loan. The Bureau is proposing § 1041.10 based on the same source of authority that serves as the basis for proposed § 1041.9: the Bureau's authority under section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that the Bureau's rules may include requirements for the purposes of preventing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.

As with proposed § 1041.9, the Bureau proposes the requirements in § 1041.10 to prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8, and the consumer injury that results from it. The Bureau believes that the additional requirements of proposed § 1041.10 may be needed in circumstances in which proposed § 1041.9 alone may not be sufficient to prevent a lender from making a covered longer-term loan that the consumer might not have the ability to repay. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.10 bear a reasonable relation to preventing the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8. In addition, as further discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.10(e), the Bureau proposes that provision pursuant to the Bureau's authority under section 1022(b)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act to conditionally or unconditionally exempt any class of covered persons, service providers, or consumer financial products or services from the requirements of a rule under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act if the Bureau determines that doing so is “necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives” of Title X of the Act. Further, as further discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.10(f), the Bureau proposes that provision pursuant to both the Bureau's authority under section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Bureau's authority under section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act to prevent evasions of the purposes and objectives of Federal consumer financial laws, including Bureau rules issued pursuant to rulemaking authority provided by Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act.

10(a) Additional Limitations on Making a Covered Longer-Term Loan Under § 1041.9

Proposed § 1041.10(a) would set forth the general additional limitations on making a covered longer-term loan under proposed § 1041.9. Proposed § 1041.10(a) would provide that when a consumer is presumed not to have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan, a lender's determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan is not reasonable, unless the lender can overcome the presumption of unaffordability. Proposed § 1041.10(a) would further provide that a lender is prohibited from making a covered longer-term loan to a consumer during the period specified in proposed § 1041.10(e). In order to determine whether the presumptions and prohibition in proposed § 1041.10 apply to a particular transaction, proposed § 1041.10(a)(2) would require a lender to obtain and review information about the consumer's borrowing history from its own records, the records of its affiliates, and a consumer report from an information system currently registered under proposed § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), if one is available.

The Bureau notes that, as drafted, the proposed presumptions and prohibition in § 1041.10 would apply only to making specific additional covered longer-term loans. The Bureau solicits comment on whether a presumption of unaffordability or other additional limitations on lending also would be appropriate for transactions involving an increase in the credit available under an existing covered loan, making an advance on a line of credit under a covered longer-term loan, or other circumstances that may evidence repeated borrowing. If such limitations would be appropriate, the Bureau requests comment on how they should be tailored in light of relevant considerations.

In this regard, the Bureau further notes that the presumptions of unaffordability depend on the definition of outstanding loan in proposed § 1041.2(a)(15) and therefore would not cover circumstances in which the consumer is more than 180 days delinquent on the prior loan. The Bureau solicits comment on whether additional requirements should apply to the ability-to-repay determination for a covered longer-term loan in these circumstances; for instance, whether to generally prohibit lenders from making a new covered longer-term loan to a consumer for the purposes of satisfying a delinquent obligation on an existing loan with the same lender or its affiliate. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on whether additional requirements should apply to covered longer-term loans that are lines of credit; for instance, whether a presumption of unaffordability should apply at the time of the ability-to-repay determination required under § 1041.9(b)(1)(ii) for a consumer to obtain an advance under a line of credit more than 180 days after the date of a prior ability-to-repay determination.

The Bureau also solicits comment on the proposed standard in § 1041.10(a) and on any alternative approaches to the relationship between proposed § 1041.9 and proposed § 1041.10 that would prevent consumer harm while reducing the burden on lenders. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the formal presumption and prohibition approach in § 1041.10 is an appropriate supplement to the § 1041.9 determination.

10(a)(1) General

Proposed § 1041.10(a)(1) would provide that if a presumption of unaffordability applies, a lender's determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan is not reasonable unless the lender makes the additional determination set forth in proposed § 1041.10(d), and discussed in detail below, and the requirements set forth in proposed § 1041.9 are satisfied. Under proposed § 1041.10(d), a lender can make a covered longer-term loan notwithstanding the presumption of unaffordability if the lender reasonably determines, based on reliable evidence, that there will be sufficient improvement in the consumer's financial capacity such that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new loan according to its terms despite the unaffordability of the prior loan. Proposed § 1041.10(a)(1) would further provide that a lender must not make a covered longer-term loan under proposed § 1041.9 to a consumer during the period specified in proposed § 1041.10(e).

Proposed comment 10(a)(1)-1 clarifies that the presumptions and prohibition would apply to making a covered longer-term loan and, if applicable, are triggered at the time of consummation of the new covered longer-term loan. Proposed comment 10(a)(1)-2 clarifies that the presumptions and prohibitions would apply to rollovers of a covered short-term loan into a covered longer-term loan (or what is termed a “renewal” in some States), to the extent that such transactions are permitted under State law. Proposed comment 10(a)(1)-3 clarifies that a lender's determination that a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered long-term loan is not reasonable within the meaning of proposed § 1041.9 if under proposed § 1041.10 the consumer is presumed to not have the ability to repay the loan and that presumption of unaffordability has not been overcome in the manner set forth in proposed § 1041.10(d). Accordingly, if proposed § 1041.10 prohibits a lender from making a covered longer-term loan, then the lender must not make the loan, regardless of the lender's determination under proposed § 1041.9. Nothing in proposed § 1041.10 would displace the requirements of § 1041.9; on the contrary, the determination under proposed § 1041.10 would be, in effect, an additional component of the proposed § 1041.9 determination of ability to repay in situations in which the basic requirements of proposed § 1041.9 alone would be insufficient to prevent the unfair and abusive practice.

10(a)(2) Borrowing History Review

Proposed § 1041.10(a)(2) would require a lender to obtain and review information about a consumer's borrowing history from the records of the lender and its affiliates, and from a consumer report obtained from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), if available, and to use this information to determine a potential loan's compliance with the requirements of proposed § 1041.10. Proposed comment 10(a)(2)-1 clarifies that a lender satisfies its obligation under § 1041.10(a)(2) to obtain a consumer report obtained from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), if available, when it complies with the requirement in § 1041.9(c)(3)(ii)(B) to obtain this same consumer report. Proposed comment 10(a)(2)-2 clarifies that if no information systems currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2) are currently available, the lender is nonetheless required to obtain information about a consumer's borrowing history from the records of the lender and its affiliates.

Based on outreach to lenders, including feedback from SERs, the Bureau believes that lenders already generally review their own records for information about a consumer's history with the lender prior to making a new loan to the consumer. The Bureau understands that some lenders in the market for covered longer-term loans also pull a consumer report from a specialty consumer reporting agency as part of standardized application screening, though practices in this regard vary widely across the market.

As detailed below in the section-by-section analysis of proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17, the Bureau believes that information regarding the consumer's borrowing history is important to facilitate reliable ability-to-repay determinations. If the consumer already has a relationship with a lender or its affiliates, the lender can obtain some historical information regarding borrowing history from its own records. However, without obtaining a report from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), the lender will not know if its existing customers or new customers have obtained a prior covered short-term loan or a prior covered longer-term balloon-payment loan from other lenders, as such information generally is not available in national consumer reports. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.10(a)(2) to require lenders to obtain a report from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2), if one is available.

The section-by-section analysis of proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17, and part VI below explain the Bureau's attempts to minimize burden in connection with furnishing information to and obtaining a consumer report from an information system currently registered pursuant to proposed § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2). Specifically, the Bureau estimates that each report would cost approximately $0.50. Consistent with the recommendations of the Small Business Review Panel Report, the Bureau requests comment on the cost to small entities of obtaining information about consumer borrowing history and on potential ways to further reduce the operational burden of obtaining this information.

10(b) Presumption of Unaffordability for Certain Covered Longer-Term Loans Following a Covered Short-Term Loan or Covered Longer-Term Balloon-Payment Loan

10(b)(1) Presumption

Proposed § 1041.10(b)(1) would provide that a consumer is presumed not to have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan under proposed § 1041.9 during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.5 or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made under § 1041.9 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter. As described further below, under an exception contained in proposed § 1041.10(b)(2), the presumption would not apply where the loan payments meet certain conditions.

Proposed comment 10(b)(1)-1 clarifies that a lender cannot make a covered longer-term loan under § 1041.9 during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under § 1041.5 or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made under proposed § 1041.9 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter unless either the exception to the presumption applies or the lender can overcome the presumption under proposed § 1041.10(d). The proposed comment also clarifies that the presumption would not apply if the loan is subject to the prohibition in proposed § 1041.10(c).

Where the presumption in proposed § 1041.10(b)(1) applies, it would not be reasonable for a lender to determine that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new covered longer-term loan without determining under proposed § 1041.10(d) that the presumption of unaffordability had been overcome. Such a determination under proposed § 1041.10(d) would require the lender to determine, based on reliable evidence, that the consumer will have sufficient improvement in financial capacity such that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new loan according to its terms despite the unaffordability of the prior loan.

The presumption in proposed § 1041.10(b) uses the same 30-day period used in proposed § 1041.6 to define when there is sufficient risk that the need for the new loan was triggered by the unaffordability of the prior loan. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.6(b), the Bureau believes that when a consumer seeks to take out a new covered short-term loan during the term of or within 30 days of a prior covered short-term loan, there is substantial reason for concern that the need to reborrow is being triggered by the unaffordability of the prior loan. The same is true if the new loan the consumer seeks is a covered longer-term loan with a similarly-sized payment obligation. Accordingly, proposed § 1041.10(b) applies a similar presumption to a reborrowing involving a covered longer-term loan as applies under proposed § 1041.6(b) to a reborrowing involving a covered short-term loan.

Similarly, covered longer-term balloon-payment loans, by definition, require a large portion of the loan to be paid at one time. As discussed in Market Concerns—Longer-Term Loans, the Bureau's research suggests that the fact that a consumer seeks to take out another covered longer-term balloon-payment loan shortly after having a previous covered longer-term balloon-payment loan outstanding will frequently indicate that the consumer did not have the ability to repay the prior loan and meet the consumer's other major financial obligations and basic living expenses. The Bureau found that the approach of the balloon payment coming due is associated with significant reborrowing. This also may provide strong evidence that the consumer will not be able to afford a new covered longer-term loan unless payments on that new loan would be substantially smaller than were payments on the prior loan. However, the need to reborrow caused by an unaffordable covered longer-term balloon-payment loan is not necessarily limited to taking out a new loan of this same type. If the borrower takes out a new covered longer-term loan other than a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan in such circumstances, it is also a reborrowing. Accordingly, unless every payment on the new covered longer-term loan would be substantially smaller than the largest payment on the prior loan, the Bureau believes that there is substantial reason for concern that the new loan also would be unaffordable.

Given these considerations, to prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8, proposed § 1041.10(b) would create a presumption of unaffordability for a covered longer-term loan during the time period in which the consumer has a covered short-term loan made under § 1041.5 or a covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made under § 1041.9 outstanding and for 30 days thereafter. As a result of this presumption, it would not be reasonable for a lender to determine that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new covered longer-term loan without taking into account the fact that the consumer did need to reborrow after obtaining a prior loan and making a reasonable determination that the consumer will be able to repay the new covered longer-term loan without reborrowing. Proposed § 1041.10(d), discussed below, defines the elements for such a determination.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed presumption to prevent the unfair and abusive practice and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing the burden on lenders. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on other methods of supplementing the basic ability-to-repay determination required for a covered longer-term loan shortly following a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan.

The Bureau also solicits comment on whether there are other circumstances of borrowing on covered longer-term loans in close proximity to covered short-term loans or covered longer-term balloon-payment loans that would also warrant a presumption of unaffordability. In this regard, the Bureau notes that it is not proposing a mandatory cooling-off period applicable to covered longer-term loans, as proposed for covered short-term loans in proposed § 1041.6(f). However, some consumer groups have advocated for applying a presumption of unaffordability based on the intensity of a consumer's use of covered loans during a defined period of time; the Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of such an approach.

10(b)(2) Exception

Proposed § 1041.10(b)(2) would provide an exception to the presumption in § 1041.10(b)(1) if every payment on the new covered longer-term loan would be substantially smaller than the largest required payment on the prior covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan. Proposed comment 10(b)(2-1 clarifies which payment on the prior loan is the largest payment and clarifies that the specific timing of payments on the prior loan and the new covered longer-term loan would not affect whether the exception in § 1041.10(b)(2) applies. Proposed comment 10(b)(1)-2 provides illustrative examples.

The Bureau believes that if payment of the largest required payment on the prior loan proved unaffordable, this unaffordability provides a strong basis for a presumption of unaffordability for a new covered longer-term loan with payments of a similar size. However, if every payment on the new covered longer-term loan would be substantially smaller than that highest payment on the prior loan, then the Bureau believes that there is not an adequate basis for such a presumption of unaffordability. In these circumstances, the Bureau believes that the basic ability-to-repay determination required by § 1041.9 would be sufficient to prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed exception to the presumption of unaffordability and on any other circumstances that would also warrant an exception to the presumption. The Bureau further seeks comment on whether a general “substantially smaller” standard is appropriate to prevent the unfair and abusive practice; whether a specific percentage reduction would be more appropriate; and, if so, what specific threshold or methodology should be used and why that number or formula appropriately differentiates substantially smaller payments. The Bureau particularly seeks comment on what type of reduction in balloon payments would be sufficient to warrant excepting the new loan from the presumption of unaffordability, and whether carrying over the threshold for the exception in proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i) for covered short-term loans would be appropriate in this context. That exception would generally apply when the amount that the consumer would owe on a new covered short-term loan would not be more than 50 percent of the amount paid on the prior covered short-term loan (or, if the transaction is a rollover, would not be more than the amount that the consumer paid on the prior covered short-term loan being rolled over).

10(c) Presumption of Unaffordability for a Covered Longer-Term Loan During an Unaffordable Outstanding Loan

Proposed § 1041.10(c) would create a presumption of unaffordability applicable to new covered longer-term loans when the consumer has a loan outstanding that was made or is being serviced by that same lender or its affiliate, other than a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan that would trigger the presumption in proposed § 1041.10(b) or the prohibition in proposed § 1041.10(e), and there are indicia that the consumer cannot afford the outstanding loan. Proposed § 1041.10(c)(2) would provide an exception to the presumption when every payment on the new covered longer-term loan would be substantially smaller than every payment on the outstanding loan or the new covered longer-term loan would result in a substantial reduction in the total cost of credit for the consumer relative to the outstanding loan.

The ability-to-repay determination under proposed § 1041.9 would require that a lender appropriately account for information known by the lender that indicates that the consumer may not have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan according to its terms. Proposed § 1041.10(c) would supplement and strengthen that requirement in specific circumstances indicating that the current outstanding loan may not be affordable for the consumer and that, therefore, the new covered longer-term loan may not be affordable to the consumer.

The Bureau has found that, for the lenders whose data was available to the Bureau, there is a very high level of refinancing, that consumers generally are taking substantial cash out at the time of refinancing, and that repayment patterns of consumers who refinanced a longer-term installment loan are generally identical to repayment patterns of consumers who ultimately repaid their loans in full. This seems to indicate that consumers in the Bureau's data use longer-term loans as a continuing source of liquidity to meet ongoing needs.

The Bureau believes that this evidence can be viewed in one of two ways. On the one hand, the fact that in most situations consumers who are refinancing these loans have been able to make the required payments when due could be understood to suggest that they are not refinancing a loan because of difficulty satisfying obligations on the existing loan. On the other hand, the fact that after making a certain number of such payments consumers need to borrow more money could be seen as evidence that these consumers cannot afford the cumulative effect of the repayments and that the repayments are causing the need to reborrow. Because the evidence is ambiguous, the Bureau is not proposing to impose a general presumption of unaffordability for covered longer-term loans taken out during the term of or within 30 days following a previous covered longer-term loan, except with regard to covered longer-term balloon-payment loans, as proposed in § 1041.10(b) and discussed above.

However, the Bureau remains concerned that in some circumstances a refinancing or taking out a new loan during the term of an outstanding loan does evidence or could mask a problem a consumer is experiencing in repaying a loan and that in these cases a new covered longer-term loan may pose heightened risk to consumers. In particular, the Bureau believes that it is appropriate to apply heightened review to a consumer's ability to repay a new loan where the circumstances suggest that the consumer is struggling to repay an outstanding loan. The Bureau believes that the analysis required by proposed § 1041.10(c) may provide greater protection to consumers and certainty to lenders than simply requiring that such transactions be analyzed under proposed § 1041.9 alone. Proposed § 1041.9 would require generally that the lender make a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the contemplated covered longer-term loan, taking into account existing major financial obligations that would include the outstanding loan from the same lender or its affiliate. However, the presumption in proposed § 1041.10(c) would provide a more detailed roadmap as to when a new covered longer-term loan would not meet the reasonable determination test.

The Bureau also has concerns about potential risks with regard to refinancing by consumers who appear to be using covered longer-term loans like a line of credit over time, but such concerns are not the focus of this rulemaking. Specifically, for consumers who appear to be refinancing in order to use a covered longer-term loan like a line of credit over time, the Bureau is worried that other harms could result if lenders use aggressive marketing tactics. The Bureau understands that some lenders use aggressive marketing tactics to encourage consumers to refinance their loans and structure their loans such that a refinancing generates additional revenue for the lender, beyond the incremental finance charges, as a result of, for example, prepayment penalties, new origination fees, or new fees to purchase ancillary products associated with the refinancing. The Bureau is concerned that some of these practices may be unfair, deceptive, or abusive. However, such practices fall outside of the scope of the current rulemaking. If, however, the Bureau finds evidence of unlawful acts or practices through its supervisory or enforcement work, the Bureau will not hesitate to take appropriate action. Also, the Accompanying RFI seeks further information from the public about these practices and the Bureau also will continue to consider whether there is a need for additional rulemaking in this area.

For the purposes of this proposal, the Bureau is focused on certain lender practices regarding refinancing where the circumstances suggest that the consumers are having difficulty repaying the outstanding loan. Such practices are at the core of the Bureau's concern about making a covered longer-term loan to a consumer without determining that the consumer will be able to repay the loan according to its terms. Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to supplement the basic ability-to-repay determination in certain circumstances where the conditions of a consumer's existing indebtedness with the same lender or its affiliate indicate that the consumer may lack the ability to repay a new covered longer-term loan.

10(c)(1) Presumption

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(1) would require a lender to presume that a consumer does not have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan if, at the time of the lender's determination under § 1041.9, the consumer has a loan outstanding that was made or is being serviced by the same lender or its affiliate and the consumer indicates or the circumstances suggest that the consumer may be experiencing difficulty repaying the outstanding loan. The proposed presumption would apply regardless of whether the outstanding loan is a covered loan, other than when proposed § 1041.10(b), (c), or (e) apply, or a non-covered loan.

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(1) would apply both to circumstances in which the consumer applies for a new loan from the same lender that made the outstanding loan (or its affiliate) and in which the consumer applies for a new loan from the company that now services the outstanding loan (or its affiliate), even if that company is not the original lender. The Bureau believes that it is appropriate to apply the proposed provision in the servicing scenario because the servicer and its affiliates would be in a particularly good position to determine if any of the four triggering circumstances in proposed § 1041.10(c)(1)(i) through (iv) is present as a result of its current relationship with the consumer, even if that company did not originate the outstanding loan.

Proposed comment 10(c)(1)-1 clarifies that if any of the circumstances in § 1041.10(c)(1) are present such that the consumer would be presumed to not have the ability to repay a contemplated covered longer-term loan under § 1041.9, then the lender cannot make that loan unless one of the exceptions to the presumption applies or the lender can overcome the presumption in the manner set forth in proposed § 1041.10(d). Proposed comment 10(c)(1)-2 clarifies that the presumption would not apply if the consumer's only outstanding loans are with other, unaffiliated lenders. Proposed comment 10(c)(1)-2 further clarifies that if § 1041.10(b), (c), or (e) applies to the transaction, then § 1041.10(c) would not apply.

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(1) would mean that in circumstances where there is an indication that an outstanding covered loan or non-covered loan that was made or is being serviced by the same lender or its affiliate is unaffordable, and neither of the exceptions in § 1041.10(c)(2) applies, a lender cannot make a covered longer-term loan under § 1041.9 unless the lender reasonably determines, based on reliable evidence, that the consumer will have sufficient improvement in financial capacity such that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new loan according to its terms, notwithstanding the fact that the consumer was unable to repay the prior loan without needing to reborrow.

In the Small Business Review Panel Outline, the Bureau included a presumption of inability to repay for certain refinances of existing loans, whether covered or not covered, from the same lender or its affiliates into covered longer-term loans. The Bureau also considered applying the presumption to any transaction in which the new loan would be a covered longer-term loan and the debt being refinanced was a covered loan from any lender. The Bureau understands, though, that lenders may have difficulty obtaining information about whether a consumer has indicated or the circumstances suggest an inability to repay a covered loan made or being serviced by a different and unaffiliated lender, rendering such a presumption particularly burdensome in those circumstances. Accordingly, the Bureau is not proposing such a presumption.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed presumption to prevent the unfair and abusive practice, on each of the particular circumstances indicating unaffordability, discussed below, and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing the burden on lenders. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether the specified conditions sufficiently capture circumstances in which consumers manifest distress in repaying a loan and on whether there are additional circumstances in which it may be appropriate to trigger the presumption of unaffordability.

In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether a pattern of refinancing that significantly extends the initial term of the loan warrants application of a presumption of unaffordability and, if so, at what point that presumption would be warranted; whether refinancing early in the repayment schedule of the loan would evidence unaffordability of the outstanding loan and, if so, up until what point in the life of the loan; and whether other performance indicators should be included in the circumstances triggering application of a presumption of unaffordability. In this regard, the Bureau specifically notes that some consumer groups have encouraged the Bureau to impose a presumption of unaffordability when a lender refinances an outstanding loan on which the consumer has repaid less than 75 percent of the loan; the Bureau seeks comment on the advisability of such an approach. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether to include a specific presumption of unaffordability in the event that the lender or its affiliate has recently contacted the consumer for collections purposes, received a returned check or payment attempt, or has an indication that the consumer's account lacks funds prior to making an attempt to collect payment. The Bureau further solicits comment on whether there are circumstances in which a loan ceases to be an outstanding loan within the meaning of § 1041.2(a)(15) because the consumer is more than 180 days delinquent on the loan that would nonetheless warrant applying a presumption of unaffordability.

The Bureau further seeks comment on the timing elements of the proposed indications of unaffordability and on whether alternative timing conditions, such as considering whether the consumer has been delinquent on a payment or otherwise expressed an inability to make one or more payments within the prior 60 days, would better prevent consumer harm. In this regard, the Bureau also solicits comment on whether seven days is the appropriate amount of time for a buffer period before a delinquency would prompt a presumption of unaffordability for a new covered longer-term loan and whether a shorter or longer period of time would be appropriate.

10(c)(1)(i)

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(1)(i) would make the presumption in § 1041.10(c)(1) applicable if a consumer is or has been delinquent by more than seven days on a scheduled payment on an outstanding loan within the past 30 days. Proposed comment 10(c)(1)(i)-1 clarifies that older delinquencies that have been cured would not trigger the presumption.

Recent delinquency indicates that a consumer is having difficulty repaying an outstanding loan. Through analysis of confidential information gathered in the course of its statutory functions, the Bureau has observed that for covered longer-term loans that are ultimately repaid rather than ending in default, the vast majority do not fall more than seven days delinquent. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that a delinquency of more than seven days indicates unaffordability of the scheduled payment and that permitting a buffer of seven days after a payment due date would avoid triggering the presumption in situations where the consumer is late in making a payment for reasons unrelated to difficulty repaying the loan.

The Bureau proposes to impose the presumption of unaffordability in proposed § 1041.10(c)(1) only if the indication of unaffordability on the part of the consumer occurred within the 30 days prior to the lender's determination under proposed § 1041.9 for the new covered longer-term loan. The Bureau believes that recent indications of unaffordability are most relevant in assessing the consumer's ability to repay. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.9(c)(3) above, the Bureau believes that the monthly income and expense cycle is the appropriate measure for a determination of whether a consumer will have the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan. Similarly, the Bureau believes that consideration of the consumer's borrowing history on an outstanding loan with the same lender or an affiliate within the past 30 days would appropriately identify current unaffordability of an existing obligation.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether using a seven-day delinquency metric and a 30-day lookback period is sufficient to identify consumers experiencing distress in repaying a loan or whether some other shorter or longer metric or lookback period would be more appropriate.

10(c)(1)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(1)(ii) would make the presumption in § 1041.10(c)(1) applicable if the consumer expressed within the past 30 days an inability to make one or more payments on the outstanding loan. Proposed comment 10(c)(1)(ii)-1 clarifies that older consumer expressions would not trigger the presumption and provides illustrative examples. The Bureau believes that if a consumer informs a lender or its representative that the consumer is having difficulty making a payment, such information must be considered by the lender in determining whether the consumer will have the ability to repay a new covered longer-term loan.

As with delinquencies, the Bureau proposes to impose this presumption of unaffordability only if the expression on the part of the consumer occurred within the 30 days prior to the lender's determination under proposed § 1041.9 for the new covered longer-term loan because, as described above, the Bureau believes that an older expression from a consumer does not necessarily indicate whether the consumer would currently lack the ability to repay a covered longer-term loan.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether 30 days is an appropriate period of time for triggering this presumption of unaffordability and, if not, what time period should be used.

10(c)(1)(iii)

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(1)(iii) would make the presumption in § 1041.10(c)(1) applicable if the new covered longer-term loan would have the effect of the consumer being able to skip a payment on the outstanding loan that would otherwise fall due. Proposed comment 10(c)(1)(iii)-1 provides an illustrative example. Generally, both consumers and lenders have an incentive to make and receive regularly scheduled payments on loans. A transaction that would have the effect of permitting a consumer to skip a payment—without another benefit to the consumer in the form of substantially smaller payments or a substantial reduction in the total cost of credit, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.10(c)(2) below—and that would deprive the lender of the receipt of funds that would otherwise be due may indicate a distressed refinance of the outstanding loan. The Bureau believes that refinancing in this manner may indicate that a consumer does not have the ability to repay a new covered longer-term loan.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the skipped payment metric is an appropriate condition for application of the presumption; if so, whether 30 days is an appropriate period of time for triggering this presumption of unaffordability and, if not, what time period should be used.

10(c)(1)(iv)

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(1)(iv) would make the presumption in § 1041.10(c)(1) applicable if the new covered longer-term loan would result in the consumer receiving no disbursement of loan proceeds or a disbursement of loan proceeds that is an amount not substantially more than the amount of payment or payments that would be due under the outstanding loan within 30 days of consummation of the new loan. Proposed comment 10(c)(1)(iv)-1 provides illustrative examples.

A transaction that would result in a consumer receiving only enough cash to satisfy the forthcoming payment or payments due to the lender or its affiliate within 30 days, the length of a typical income and expense cycle, may indicate that the consumer is having difficulty making payments on the outstanding loan and is seeking the new covered longer-term loan in order to obtain cash to make those payments. The Bureau's analysis of confidential data gathered in the course of its statutory functions indicates that the circumstance in proposed § 1041.10(c)(1)(iv) would likely occur rarely because most consumers in the loan sample analyzed by the Bureau took out substantial cash when refinancing a longer-term installment loan.

While the Bureau is concerned that this condition could prompt some lenders to encourage consumers to take out loans in amounts larger than the consumer may actually need, the Bureau believes the circumstance may indicate that the outstanding loan is unaffordable and so the harm of not imposing a presumption of unaffordability for a new covered longer-term loan in this circumstance would outweigh the potential harm of larger loans. Additionally, the Bureau notes that the lender would still need to satisfy the requirements of proposed § 1041.9 for the new covered longer-term loan and, therefore, any loan amount would be permissible only if the lender makes a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new covered longer-term loan.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether a consumer who would receive a disbursement of loan proceeds to cover more than one month's worth of payments should also be presumed not to have the ability to repay the new loan and, if so, at what point to draw the line in determining the applicability of the presumption.

10(c)(2) Exception

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(2) would provide an exception to the presumption of unaffordability in § 1041.10(c)(1) in the event that the new covered longer-term loan would meet certain conditions. As described below, the Bureau believes that if the new covered longer-term loan would reduce the consumer's costs in certain ways, the rationale for the presumption does not apply.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed exception and on any alternatives or additions that would adequately protect consumers while reducing burden on lenders.

10(c)(2)(i)

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(2)(i) would provide an exception from the proposed presumption of unaffordability if every payment on the new covered longer-term loan would be substantially smaller than every payment on the outstanding loan. Proposed comment 10(c)(2)(i)-1 provides illustrative examples.

The Bureau believes that if payments of a certain amount proved unaffordable for a given consumer, this unaffordability provides a strong basis for a presumption of unaffordability for a new covered longer-term loan with payments of a similar size. However, if every payment on the new covered longer-term loan would be substantially smaller than every payment on the outstanding loan, then the Bureau believes that there is not an adequate basis for such a presumption of unaffordability. In these circumstances, the Bureau believes that the basic ability-to-repay determination required by § 1041.9 would be sufficient to prevent the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8.

While the Bureau is concerned that this exception could prompt some lenders to extend loans with substantially smaller payments but a substantially longer duration, which could impose higher costs on the consumer over repayment of the loan, the Bureau believes that the benefits of this exception outweigh this potential source of consumer harm. Additionally, the Bureau notes that the lender would still need to satisfy the requirements of proposed § 1041.9 for the new covered longer-term loan and, therefore, any loan amount would be permissible only if the lender makes a reasonable determination that the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan, including accounting for volatility in income over time.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of providing an exception to the proposed presumption in this circumstance. The Bureau also solicits comment on the proposed standard for substantially smaller payments and on alternatives—such as a specific percentage decrease in the size of payments relative to payments on the outstanding loan—that would adequately protect consumers while reducing burden on lenders. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on available sources of information that would provide the basis for such a standard. In addition, the Bureau particularly seeks comment on whether carrying over the threshold for the exception in proposed § 1041.6(b)(2)(i) for covered short-term loans would be appropriate in this context. That exception would generally apply when the amount that the consumer would owe on the new covered short-term loan would not be more than 50 percent of the amount paid on the prior covered short-term loan (or, if the transaction is a rollover, would not be more than the amount that the consumer paid on the prior covered short-term loan that is rolled over).

10(c)(2)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.10(c)(2)(ii) would create an exception from the proposed presumption of unaffordability if the new covered longer-term loan would result in a substantial reduction in the total cost of credit for the consumer relative to the outstanding loan. Proposed comment § 1041.10(c)(2)(ii)-1 clarifies that the relative total costs of credit reflects the definition contained in proposed § 1041.2(a)(18) and provides illustrative examples.

The Bureau believes that providing an exception from the presumption of unaffordability for loans that would yield a substantial reduction in the total cost of credit may be appropriate to enable lenders to refinance consumers into relatively lower-cost loans. The effect of the proposed exception would be only to relieve the burden of the presumption of unaffordability when the refinance would result in a benefit to the consumer in the form of a substantially lower total cost of credit: The new covered longer-term loan would still need to satisfy the basic ability-to-repay requirements of proposed § 1041.9.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of providing an exception to the proposed presumption in this circumstance. The Bureau also solicits comment on the proposed standard for substantial reduction in the total cost of credit and on alternatives—such as a specific percentage decrease in the total cost of credit relative to the cost of the outstanding loan—that would adequately protect consumers while reducing burden on lenders.

10(d) Overcoming the Presumption of Unaffordability

Proposed § 1041.10(d) would set forth the elements required for a lender to overcome the presumptions of unaffordability in proposed § 1041.10(b) and (c). Proposed § 1041.10(d) would provide that a lender can overcome the presumption of unaffordability only if the lender reasonably determines, based on reliable evidence, that the consumer will have sufficient improvement in financial capacity such that the consumer will have the ability to repay the new loan according to its terms despite the unaffordability of the prior loan. Proposed § 1041.10(d) would require lenders to measure sufficient improvement in financial capacity by comparing the consumer's financial capacity during the period for which the lender is required to make an ability-to-repay determination for the new loan pursuant to § 1041.9(b)(2) to the consumer's financial capacity since obtaining the prior loan or, if the prior loan was not a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan, during the 30 days prior to the lender's determination.

The Bureau proposes several comments to clarify the requirements for a lender to overcome a presumption of unaffordability. Proposed comment 10(d)-1 clarifies that proposed § 1041.10(d) would permit the lender to overcome the presumption in limited circumstances evidencing an improvement in the consumer's financial capacity for the new loan relative to the consumer's financial capacity since obtaining the prior loan or, in some circumstances, during the prior 30 days. Proposed comments 10(d)-2 and comment 10(d)-3 provide illustrative examples of these circumstances. Proposed comment 10(d)-2 clarifies that a lender may overcome a presumption of unaffordability where there is reliable evidence that the need to reborrow is prompted by a decline in income during the prior 30 days that is not reasonably expected to recur for the period during which the lender is making an ability-to-repay determination for the new covered longer-term loan. Proposed comment 10(d)-3 clarifies that a lender may overcome a presumption of unaffordability where there is reliable evidence that the consumer's financial capacity will be sufficiently improved relative to the prior 30 days because of a projected increase in net income or a decrease in major financial obligations for the period during which the lender is making an ability-to-repay determination for the new covered longer-term loan. Proposed comment 10(d)-4 clarifies that reliable evidence consists of verification evidence regarding the consumer's net income and major financial obligations sufficient to make the comparison required under § 1041.10(d). Proposed comment 10(d)-4 further clarifies that a self-certification by the consumer does not constitute reliable evidence unless the lender verifies the facts certified by the consumer through other reliable means.

With respect to proposed comment 10(d)-2, the Bureau believes that if the reborrowing is prompted by a decline in income since obtaining the prior loan (or during the prior 30 days, as applicable) that is not reasonably expected to recur during the period for which the lender is underwriting the new covered longer-term, the unaffordability of the prior loan, including difficulty repaying an outstanding loan, may not be probative as to the consumer's ability to repay a new covered short-term loan. Similarly, with respect to proposed comment 10(d)-3, the Bureau believes that permitting a lender to overcome the presumption of unaffordability in these circumstances would be appropriate because an increase in the consumer's expected income or decrease in the consumer's expected payments on major financial obligations relative to the prior 30 days may materially impact the consumer's financial capacity such that a prior unaffordable loan, including difficulty repaying an outstanding loan, may not be probative as to the consumer's ability to repay a new covered longer-term loan. Similarly, the Bureau believes that if the reborrowing is prompted by a decline in income during the prior 30 days that is not reasonably expected to recur during the period for which the lender is underwriting the new covered longer-term loan, the unaffordability of the prior loan, including difficulty repaying an outstanding loan, may not be probative as to the consumer's ability to repay a new covered longer-term loan.

As discussed above, the presumptions in proposed § 1041.10 supplement the basic ability-to-repay requirements in proposed § 1041.9 in certain circumstances where a consumer's recent borrowing indicates that a consumer would not have the ability to repay a new covered longer-term loan. Accordingly, the procedure in proposed § 1041.10(d) for overcoming the presumption of unaffordability would address only the presumption; lenders would still need to determine ability to repay in accordance with proposed § 1041.9 before making the new covered longer-term loan.

The Bureau's proposal would permit lenders to overcome the presumption of unaffordability for multiple successive refinancings. However, the Bureau notes that, as discussed with regard to proposed § 1041.6(e), certain patterns of reborrowing may indicate that the repeated determinations that the presumption of unaffordability was overcome were not consistent with proposed § 1041.10(d) and that the ability-to-repay determination for such loans were not reasonable under proposed § 1041.9.

The Bureau recognizes that the standard in proposed § 1041.10(d) would permit a lender to overcome a presumption of unaffordability only in a narrow set of circumstances that are reflected in certain aspects of a consumer's financial capacity and can be verified through reliable evidence. As discussed above with regard to alternatives considered for § 1041.10, the Bureau considered including an additional set of circumstances permitting lenders to overcome the presumptions of unaffordability in the event that the lender determined that the need to reborrow was prompted by an unusual and non-recurring expense rather than by the unaffordability of the prior loan. In light of the challenges with such an approach, described above, the Bureau elected instead to propose § 1041.10(d) without permitting an unusual and non-recurring expense to satisfy the conditions of the test. However, the Bureau solicits comment on including an unusual and non-recurring expense as a third circumstance in which lenders could overcome the presumptions of unaffordability.

The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed standard for overcoming the presumptions of unaffordability. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on the circumstances that would permit a lender to overcome a presumption of unaffordability; on whether other or additional circumstances should be included in the standard and, if so, how to define such circumstances. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on the appropriate time period for comparison of the consumer's financial capacity between the prior and prospective loans, and, in particular, the different requirements for prior loans of different types. The Bureau solicits comment on the types of information that lenders would be permitted to use as reliable evidence to make the determination in proposed § 1041.10(d).

The Bureau also solicits comment on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer injury while reducing the burden on lenders, including any additional circumstances that should be deemed sufficient to overcome a presumption of unaffordability. The Bureau also solicits comment on how to address unexpected and non-recurring increases in expenses, such as major vehicle repairs or emergency appliance replacements, including on the alternative discussed above with regard to alternatives considered for proposed § 1041.10.

10(e) Prohibition on Making a Covered Longer-Term Loan Under § 1041.9 Following a Covered Short-Term Loan Made Under § 1041.7

Proposed § 1041.10(e) would prohibit a lender or its affiliate from making a covered longer-term loan under proposed § 1041.9 to a consumer during the time period in which a loan made by the lender or its affiliate under § 1041.7 is outstanding and for 30 days thereafter. Proposed comment 10(e)-1 clarifies that lenders are permitted to make a covered longer-term loan under § 1041.11 or § 1041.12 during this period. While the purpose of the restriction in proposed § 1041.10(e) is to safeguard an important component of the proposed conditional exemption in § 1041.7, the Bureau is including this provision in proposed § 1041.10 for ease of reference for lenders so that they can look to a single provision of the rule for a list of prohibitions and presumptions that affect the making of covered longer-term loans under proposed § 1041.9.

For purposes of proposed § 1041.10(e) and its accompanying commentary, the Bureau is relying on authority under section 1022(b)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act to grant conditional exemptions in certain circumstances from rules issued by the Bureau under the Bureau's Dodd-Frank Act legal authorities. As discussed at part IV, Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) authorizes the Bureau to, by rule, “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any class of . . . consumer financial products or services” from any provision of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act or from any rule issued under Title X as the Bureau determines “necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives” of Title X. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.7, the Bureau believes that the proposed conditional exemption for covered short-term loans is appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank.

To effectuate the important conditions of the exemption in proposed § 1041.7, the Bureau is proposing the prohibition contained in § 1041.10(e). A covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 is not subject to the ability-to-repay requirements in proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.6. As a result, for some consumers, a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 would be unaffordable and leave them in a vulnerable financial position. Under these circumstances, the principal reduction requirements under proposed § 1041.7(b)(1) and the three loan limit on a sequence of loans made under § 1041.7 would allow consumers to repay the principal gradually over a three-loan sequence. This proposed protection could be circumvented if, in lieu of making a loan subject to such principal reduction, a lender were free to make a high-cost covered longer-term loan under proposed § 1041.9 during the 30 days following repayment of the first loan—or second loan—in a sequence of covered short-term loans made under § 1041.7 or while such first or second loan in the sequence was outstanding.

Furthermore, the Bureau believes that the prohibition in proposed § 1041.10(e) would prevent lenders from using a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 to induce consumers into taking a covered longer-term loan made under proposed § 1041.9. As noted above, many consumers would not be able to afford to repay the full amount of a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 when the loan comes due. For that reason, proposed § 1041.7 would permit the lender to make two additional loans with a one-third principal reduction for each subsequent loan so that the consumer effectively can repay the initial loan amount in installments. In the absence of the proposed requirement, as a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 comes due, the lender could leverage the consumer's financial vulnerability and need for funds to make a covered longer-term loan that the consumer otherwise would not have taken. For a lender, this business model would generate more revenue than a business model in which the lender adhered to the proposed path for a sequence of loans made under proposed § 1041.7 and would also reduce the upfront costs of customer acquisition on covered longer-term loans. Lenders who desire to make covered longer-term loans under proposed § 1041.9 ordinarily would have to take steps to acquire customers willing to take those loans and to disclose the terms of those loans upfront. For the consumer, what is ostensibly a short-term loan may, contrary to the consumer's original expectations, result in long-term debt.

The Bureau recognizes that proposed § 1041.10(e) would prohibit a lender or its affiliate from making a covered longer-term loan that otherwise could be made assuming that the applicable requirements of proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 were satisfied. The Bureau views this proposed requirement as a reasonable restriction to prevent lenders from using the framework provided in proposed § 1041.7 to induce consumers to borrow covered longer-term loans under proposed § 1041.9.

The Bureau notes that, unlike the prohibition in proposed § 1041.6(g) applicable to covered short-term loans, the prohibition in proposed § 1041.10(e) would apply only to loans made by the same lender or its affiliate, not to loans made by unaffiliated lenders. A consumer who chooses to transition from a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7 to a covered longer-term loan made under proposed § 1041.9 could do so by seeking out this type of loan from a different (unaffiliated) lender, or by waiting 30 days after repayment of the prior covered short-term loan made under § 1041.7.

In addition, the lending restrictions under proposed § 1041.10(e) would not encompass covered longer-term loans made under proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12. With respect to the types of loans subject to the requirements under proposed § 1041.10(e), the Bureau is drawing a distinction between covered longer-term loans made under proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12 and covered longer-term loans made under proposed § 1041.9 for two principal reasons. First, the Bureau does not believe that the same incentives would be present for lenders to use covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.7 to induce consumers to take out covered longer-term loans under proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12. Covered longer-term loans under proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12 would be subject to various requirements related to duration, cost, and other loan terms, as well as important backend protections. The Bureau believes these requirements in proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12 would make offering a covered short-term loan under proposed § 1041.7 to induce consumers to take out a covered longer-term loan under proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12 an unattractive business model for lenders. Second, even if the Bureau were concerned that such incentives exist, the Bureau believes that it is unlikely that many lenders would offer both covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7 and covered longer-term loans under proposed §§ 1041.11 and 1041.12.

The Bureau notes that this proposed prohibition was not included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline. The Bureau seeks comment on whether this proposed prohibition is appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act. In this regard, the Bureau solicits comment on whether it is likely that covered short-term loans made under proposed § 1041.7 could be used to induce consumers to take covered longer-term loans under proposed § 1041.9. The Bureau seeks comment on whether lenders would anticipate making covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7 and covered longer-term loans under proposed § 1041.9 to consumers close in time to one another, if permitted to do so under a final rule. The Bureau, further, seeks comment on whether imposing the prohibition for 30 days after the loan made under proposed § 1041.7 is repaid is the appropriate length of time or whether a shorter or longer period is appropriate. The Bureau seeks comment on the impact this proposed prohibition would have on small entities. Finally, the Bureau seeks comment on whether any alternative approaches exist that would address the Bureau's concerns related to effectuating the conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.7 while preserving the ability of lenders to make covered longer-term loans under proposed § 1041.9 close in time to covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7.

10(f) Determining Period Between Consecutive Covered Loans

Proposed § 1041.10(f) would define how a lender must determine the number of days between covered loans for the purposes of proposed § 1041.10(b) and (e). In particular, proposed § 1041.10(f) would specify that days on which a consumer had a non-covered bridge loan outstanding do not count toward the determination of time periods specified by proposed § 1041.10(b) and (e). Proposed comment 10(f)-1 clarifies that the proposed requirement reflects the requirement in proposed § 1041.6(h): Proposed § 1041.10(f) would apply if the lender or its affiliate makes a non-covered bridge loan to a consumer during the time period in which any covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan made by the lender or its affiliate is outstanding and for 30 days thereafter.

As with proposed § 1041.6(h), the Bureau is concerned that there is some risk that lenders might seek to evade the proposed rule designed to prevent the unfair and abusive practice by making certain types of loans that fall outside the scope of the proposed rule during the 30-day period following repayment of a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan. Since the due date of such loans would be beyond that 30-day period, the lender would be free to make a covered longer-term loan without having to comply with proposed § 1041.10(b) or proposed § 1041.10(e). Proposed § 1041.2(a)(13) would define non-covered bridge loan as a non-recourse pawn loan made within 30 days of an outstanding covered short-term loan and that the consumer is required to repay within 90 days of its consummation. The Bureau is seeking comment under that provision as to whether additional non-covered loans should be added to the definition.

As with other provisions of proposed § 1041.10, in proposing § 1041.10(f) and its accompanying commentary, the Bureau is relying on the Bureau's authority to prevent unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices under the Dodd-Frank Act. For purposes of proposed § 1041.10(f) in particular, the Bureau is also relying on the Bureau's anti-evasion authority under section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act. As discussed at part IV, Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(1) provides that the Bureau's director may prescribe rules “as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.” The Bureau believes that the requirements of proposed § 1041.10(f) would prevent evasions of the reborrowing restrictions under proposed § 1041.10(b) by not counting the days on which a non-covered bridge loan is outstanding toward the determination of whether a subsequent covered longer-term loan made by the lender or an affiliate is made within 30 days of the prior covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon-payment loan outstanding, as applicable. This would prevent evasion insofar as, in the absence of this proposed restriction, a lender or its affiliate could make a non-covered bridge loan to keep a consumer in debt on a non-covered bridge loan during the reborrowing period and then wait to make a new covered longer-term loan with similar payments more than 30 calendar days after the prior loan, which would evade the presumption in proposed § 1041.10(b) and the prohibition in proposed § 1041.10(e). The Bureau is concerned that this type of circumvention of the reborrowing restrictions could lead to lenders making covered longer-term loans that consumers do not have the ability to repay.

Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to exclude from the period of time between affected loans those days on which a consumer has a non-covered bridge loan outstanding. The Bureau believes that defining the period of time between covered loans in this manner may be appropriate to prevent lenders from making covered longer-term loans for which the consumer does not have the ability to repay.

The Bureau solicits comment on the appropriateness of the standard in proposed § 1041.10(f) and on any alternatives that would adequately prevent consumer harm while reducing burden on lenders.

Section 1041.11 Conditional Exemption for Certain Covered Longer-Term Loans of up to 6 Months' Duration

Background

Proposed § 1041.11 would provide a conditional exemption from §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) for certain covered longer-term loans that share certain features of the NCUA PAL program. Proposed § 1041.11 would allow a lender to make a covered longer-term loan without making the ability-to-repay determination that would be required by proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 and without complying with the payment notice requirement of § 1041.15(b), provided that certain conditions and requirements are satisfied. The conditions for making a loan under § 1041.11 largely track the conditions set forth by the NCUA at 12 CFR 701.21(c)(7)(iii) for a Payday Alternative Loan made by a Federal credit union; in addition, the Bureau is proposing certain additional requirements. The Bureau proposes this provision pursuant to its authority under section 1021(b)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act to create conditional exemptions from rules issued under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act.

As discussed in part II.C above, the NCUA amended its regulations in 2010 to authorize credit unions within its jurisdiction to make what it denominated as “payday alternative loans.” These rules are intended to provide a “regulatory structure under which [credit unions] could offer a responsible payday loan alternative to members in a safe and sound manner.” In a subsequent advance notice of proposed rulemaking, NCUA explained that it was concerned that many credit union members who turned to typical payday loans “are often unable to break free of [an] unhealthy dependence” on such loans. The agency created the Payday Alternative Loan program to provide “a viable alternative” that could provide a lower cost in the short term and, in the long term, “offer borrowers a way to break the cycle of reliance on payday loans by building creditworthiness and transitioning to traditional, mainstream financial products.”

Over 700 Federal credit unions, nearly 20 percent of Federal credit unions nationally, made approximately $123.3 million in Payday Alternative Loans during 2015. In 2014, the average loan amount was $678. Three-quarters of the participating Federal credit unions reported consumer payment history to consumer reporting agencies. The annualized net charge-off rate, as a percent of average loan balances outstanding, in 2014 for these loans was 7.5 percent.

Proposed § 1041.11 reflects the Bureau's belief that it may be appropriate to incorporate certain aspects of the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan program into the Bureau's regulation in order to enable such lending to continue with minor modifications and, where applicable State law permits, to allow lenders that are not Federal credit unions to make such loans without undertaking the ability-to-repay determination that would be required by proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 and without complying with the payment notice requirement of proposed § 1041.15(b). The Bureau believes that proposed § 1041.11 would provide strong consumer protections to address consumer harms in this market by limiting the loan terms, including the permissible cost of credit and placing restrictions on reborrowing loans, while largely preserving an existing product that is already subject to Federal law designed to ensure that the loans are affordable and the risks to consumers are minimized. Further, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.15(b)(2)(i), the Bureau is concerned that lenders may be unable to continue offering Payday Alternative Loans if the payment notice requirement of proposed § 1041.15(b) is applied to these loans.

The Bureau believes that proposed § 1041.11 would reduce the cost of compliance with the Bureau's proposal, if finalized, for lenders that would make covered longer-term loans meeting the proposed conditions by relieving lenders of the obligation to satisfy various requirements of proposed §§ 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b). Further, the Bureau believes that the conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.11 is appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including ensuring that “all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services” and that these markets “operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.” Specifically, the proposed conditional exemption is designed to facilitate access to credit by permitting lenders an alternative option for making covered longer-term loans, subject to important structural, cost, and borrowing history limitations.

During the SBREFA process, the Bureau received feedback from some of the SERs—including, in particular, comments from some of the SERs that are non-depository lenders—generally expressing skepticism that loans sharing the features of the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan would be viable products for their businesses. The Bureau also received similar feedback from other lenders in response to the Small Business Review Panel Outline. Responding to the proposals being considered by the Bureau as part of the SBREFA process, some of the SERs asserted that the loan principal amount was too small, the duration was too short, and the permissible cost of credit too low for such loans to be economically viable for their businesses. The Bureau also received feedback from lenders, including some credit unions and other depository institutions that otherwise expressed general willingness to make loans that were generally similar to loans under § 1041.11, but objected to the particular pricing structure permitted under the NCUA regulation.

Incorporating many of the conditions established by the NCUA for its Payday Alternative Loan program into a conditional exemption would create a narrow exemption to the general requirement of the Bureau's proposal to determine a consumer's ability to repay prior to making a covered longer-term loan. The Bureau recognizes that the conditional exemption would be more attractive to lenders if the conditions were more permissive. The Bureau believes, however, that such an expansion of the conditional exemption could undermine the core consumer protection purpose of the Bureau's proposal. To the extent that a lender finds the conditions in proposed § 1041.11 too limiting, they would be able to make larger, higher-cost, or longer-term loans to those consumers that the lender reasonably determines have the ability to repay such loans.

At the same time, the Bureau also observed from engagement with credit unions after releasing the Small Business Review Panel Outline that some Federal credit unions have found the requirements of the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan program to be feasible for certain consumers, even if generating limited revenue for these entities. The purpose of the conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.11 is to enable these lenders to continue making loans under the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan Program and to allow other lenders, including banks and non-depositories to make similar loans, as well. The Bureau received feedback indicating that layering of additional requirements on top of the NCUA regulations could cause lenders currently making or otherwise interested in making loans of this type to refrain from doing so. For instance, lenders that indicated that they would otherwise be inclined to make Payday Alternative Loan-like loans stated that one of their biggest concerns was that the Small Business Review Panel Outline indicated that the Bureau was considering requiring lenders to furnish to and obtain a consumer report from one or more specialty consumer reporting agencies, which the lenders believed would be costly and unwarranted given the limited revenues likely to be generated by these loans.

The Small Business Review Panel Report recommended that the Bureau solicit comment on additional options for alternative requirements for making covered longer-term loans without satisfying the proposed ability-to-repay requirements. Considering the feedback from SERs and the recommendation of the Small Business Review Panel, the Bureau evaluated each potential condition under § 1041.11 and has made some adjustments to the approach included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, as discussed the section-by-section analysis of each proposed provision. The Bureau is also proposing an additional set of alternative requirements for making covered longer-term loans in proposed § 1041.12 in part to address concerns related to making loans under proposed § 1041.11 and, as discussed further below, is soliciting comment on whether additional alternatives would be appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act.

In proposing to permit all lenders to make covered longer-term loans under § 1041.11—rather than limiting the exemption to certain lenders, such as Federal credit unions—the Bureau endeavors to facilitate access to credit, regardless of the size or charter status of the entity with which a consumer conducts her other financial transactions, within the important limits imposed by more protective State, local, and tribal laws. Extending the conditional exemption to all financial institutions that choose to make loans of the type provided for in § 1041.11 furthers that purpose.

The Bureau seeks comment generally on whether to provide a conditional exemption from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements for covered longer-term loans sharing certain requirements of the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether proposed § 1041.11 would appropriately balance the concerns for access to credit and consumer protection; on the costs and other burdens that proposed § 1041.11 would, if finalized, impose on lenders, including small entities; and on each of the specific conditions and requirements under proposed § 1041.11, discussed below.

The Bureau also solicits comment on whether to restrict the availability of the conditional exemption under proposed § 1041.11 to certain classes of lenders denominated by size or charter type, and, if so, what the justification for such a restriction would be. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether a different set of conditions for covered longer-term loans exempt from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements would be appropriate, and, if so, what, specifically, such an alternative set of conditions would be. For example, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the conditional exemption should be limited to loans made to consumers with whom the lender has a pre-existing relationship and, if so, what type and duration of relationship should be required. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on the extent to which lenders interested in making a covered longer-term loan conditionally exempt from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements anticipate making loans subject to the requirements of proposed § 1041.11, as compared to proposed § 1041.12.

Legal Authority

Proposed § 1041.11 would establish an alternative set of requirements for covered short-term loans that, if complied with by lenders, would conditionally exempt them from the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8, the ability-to-repay requirements under proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10, and the payment notice requirement of proposed § 1041.15(b). The Bureau is proposing the requirements of proposed § 1041.11 pursuant to the Bureau's authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) to grant conditional exemptions in certain circumstances from rules issued by the Bureau under the Bureau's Dodd-Frank Act legal authorities.

Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) authorizes the Bureau to, by rule, “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any class of . . . consumer financial products or services” from any provision of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act or from any rule issued under Title X as the Bureau determines “necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives” of Title X. The purposes of Title X are set forth in Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(a), which provides that the Bureau shall implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently “for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that [such markets] are fair, transparent and competitive.”

The objectives of Title X are set forth in Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b). Section 1021(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Bureau to exercise its authorities under Federal consumer financial law for the purposes of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services: (1) Consumers “are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(1)); (2) consumers “are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(2)); (3) “outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(3)); (4) “Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair completion” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(4)); and “markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(5)).

When issuing an exemption under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A), the Bureau is required under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(B) to take into consideration, as appropriate, three factors. These enumerated factors are: (1) The total assets of the class of covered persons; (2) the volume of transactions involving consumer financial products or services in which the class of covered persons engages; and (3) existing provisions of law which are applicable to the consumer financial product or service and the extent to which such provisions provide consumers with adequate protections.

In connection with the statutory factor focusing on the extent to which existing applicable provisions of law provide consumers with adequate protections, the Bureau observes that the Federal Credit Union Act and associated NCUA regulations currently provide a suite of protections for certain small-dollar loans made by Federal credit unions that would be covered longer-term loans if the Bureau finalized the proposed rule. These protections include an express limitation on the permissible cost of credit, as well as a number of structural conditions for such loans, limitations related to the consumer's borrowing history, and requirements related to the Federal credit union's underwriting policies.

As discussed above, the loans currently offered by Federal credit unions appear to be substantially safer with regard to risk of default, reborrowing, and collateral harms from unaffordable payments than many alternative products on the market today. While the Bureau believes that certain additional safeguards would be prudent, as discussed below, to adaption of the product by other types of lenders, the Bureau believes that the track record of Federal credit unions concerning the adequacy of the existing applicable provisions of law is a substantial factor supporting issuance of the proposed conditional exemption. Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to provide a conditional exemption from proposed §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) for covered longer-term loans that share certain features of the NCUA Payday Alternative Loans. The proposed conditional exemption would be a partial exemption meaning that loans under § 1041.11 would still be subject to all other provisions of the Bureau's proposed rule; for example, lenders would still be required to comply with the limitation on payment transfer attempts in proposed § 1041.14, the consumer rights notice in proposed § 1041.15(d), and the compliance program and record retention requirements in proposed § 1041.18.

The Bureau believes that these loans are a lower-cost, safer alternative in the market for payday, vehicle title, and installment loans. In addition, the Bureau has not observed evidence that lenders making loans under the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan program participate in widespread questionable payment practices that warrant the proposed payment notice requirement in § 1041.15(b). The Bureau therefore believes that a conditional exemption for loans sharing certain features of the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan program is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes or objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the objective of making credit available to consumers in a fair and transparent manner. Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to provide an exemption from §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) for such covered longer-term loans.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether the Bureau should rely upon the Bureau's statutory exemption authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) to exempt loans that satisfy the requirements of proposed § 1041.11 from the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8, the ability-to-repay requirements proposed under §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10, and the payment notice requirement proposed under § 1041.15(b). Alternatively, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the requirements under proposed § 1041.11 should instead be based on the Bureau's authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(b) to prescribe rules identifying as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices and to include in such rules requirements for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices. In particular, the Bureau requests comment on whether loans made under proposed § 1041.11 should be expressly excluded from the identification of the unfair and abusive practice rather than exempted therefrom or whether the requirements for loans made under proposed § 1041.11 should be considered requirements for preventing unfair and abusive practices.

11(a) Conditional Exemption for Certain Covered Longer-Term Loans

Proposed § 1041.11(a) would provide a conditional exemption from §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) for covered longer-term loans satisfying the conditions and requirements in § 1041.11(b) through (e). Proposed § 1041.11(a) would not provide an exemption from any other provision of law. For example, proposed § 1041.11(a) would not permit loans to servicemembers and their dependents that would violate the Military Lending Act and its implementing regulations.

Proposed comment 11(a)-1 clarifies that, subject to the requirements of other applicable laws, § 1041.11(a) would permit all lenders to make loans pursuant to § 1041.11. Proposed comment 11(a)-1 further clarifies that § 1041.11(a) applies only to covered longer-term loans and so loans under § 1041.11 would have a duration of more than 45 days.

While the NCUA requirements for Payday Alternative Loans permit Federal credit unions to make loans with a duration of one month, the Bureau is concerned that, given the financial circumstances of many borrowers, it may be difficult for many borrowers to repay a 30-day loan without the need to reborrow in short order. The Bureau is proposing a separate alternative path for covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7, which would permit borrowers to obtain up to three back-to-back covered short-term loans with gradual tapering of the loan principal. The Bureau believes that restricting the availability of the proposed exemption for the loans sharing certain features of NCUA's Payday Alternative Loan program to covered longer-term loans would permit lenders an alternative way to make relatively lower-cost loans without disrupting the core features of the Bureau's proposed framework for regulation in the affected markets.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether to extend the proposed conditional exemption to include covered short-term loans with a minimum duration of 30 days.

11(b) Loan Term Conditions

Proposed § 1041.11(b) would require loans under § 1041.11 to meet certain conditions as to the loan terms. In general, the requirements in proposed § 1041.11(b) parallel certain conditions already required for Federal credit unions making loans pursuant to the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan requirements.

Each proposed condition for a loan under § 1041.11 is described below. The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of the loan term conditions, including on the burden such conditions, if finalized, would impose on lenders, including small entities, making loans under § 1041.11. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether other or additional loan term conditions would be appropriate to carry out the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the consumer protection and access to credit objectives. In this regard, the Bureau notes that proposed § 1041.12 would also provide lenders with an alternative path to making covered longer-term loans without satisfying the proposed ability-to-repay requirements and that the loan terms in proposed § 1041.12 would provide lenders with somewhat greater flexibility, relative to proposed § 1041.11, in the structure and pricing of loan products subject to a set of back-end protections. Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to prohibit lenders from taking a vehicle security interest in connection with a covered longer-term loan that would be exempt from §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) under proposed § 1041.11.

11(b)(1)

Proposed § 1041.11(b)(1) would provide that the loan not be structured as open-end credit. The proposed limitation mirrors the NCUA requirement that Payday Alternative Loans be closed-end credit. The Bureau believes that attempting to develop restrictions for open-end credit in proposed § 1041.11 would add undue complexity without providing appreciable benefit for consumers and that limiting the proposed conditional exemption from the ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements to closed-end loans would result in a simpler and more transparent transaction for both consumers and lenders. The Bureau therefore believes that this limitation would help ensure that, among other things, that this market operates fairly and transparently.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether to permit open-end loans to be made under this conditional exemption; whether lenders would choose to make open-end loans under this conditional exemption if permitted to do so; and what the benefit for consumers would be of permitting such loans and what additional conditions may then be appropriate for proposed § 1041.11.

11(b)(2)

Proposed § 1041.11(b)(2) would limit the conditional exemption to covered longer-term loans with a duration of not more than six months. The proposed limitation mirrors the NCUA requirement that Payday Alternative Loans have a maximum duration of six months. In finalizing the Payday Alternative Loan duration conditions, NCUA explained that “[the NCUA Board] is concerned that longer term loans may actually have unintended negative consequences” and that Federal credit unions should structure these loans “in a way that allows a borrower to repay the loan in the given term.” The Bureau believes that the NCUA limitation on maximum duration is appropriate to maintain in the context of the other protections under § 1041.11 and would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices and this market operates efficiently to facilitate access to credit. In contrast, proposed § 1041.12 would permit loans with a duration longer than six months, subject to the conditions in that section.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether to include a maximum duration for loans under § 1041.11 and, if so, whether six months is an appropriate maximum duration. The Bureau further solicits comment on the extent to which the maximum duration condition would affect whether lenders would make loans under § 1041.11.

11(b)(3)

Proposed § 1041.11(b)(3) would limit the conditional exemption to covered longer-term loans with a principal of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000. The proposed loan principal conditions mirror the NCUA loan principal requirements for Payday Alternative Loans. The Bureau is aware that some lenders, as expressed during the SBREFA process, believe the proposed loan principal conditions would unduly restrict the types of longer-term loans that could be made under this conditional exemption. The Bureau is concerned that larger loans, when accompanied with a leveraged payment mechanism, may present more risks to consumers. The Bureau also notes that larger loans may make it easier for lenders to absorb the costs of conducting an ability-to-repay determination and providing payment notice in accordance with proposed § 1041.15(b). In proposing the minimum principal requirement for Payday Alternative Loans, the NCUA observed that there is a demand for loans of $200. The Bureau believes that it would not be consistent with the purposes of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act to expand the conditional exemption and believes that this limitation would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices and this market operates efficiently to facilitate access to credit. The Bureau also notes that proposed § 1041.12 would permit lenders to make larger covered longer-term loans under that proposed conditional exemption.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether to include a minimum principal amount and, if so, whether $200 is the appropriate minimum principal. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether to include a maximum principal amount and, if so, whether $1,000 is the appropriate maximum principal. The Bureau further solicits comment on the extent to which principal amount conditions would affect whether lenders would make loans under § 1041.11.

11(b)(4)

Proposed § 1041.11(b)(4) would limit the conditional exemption to loans that are repayable in two or more payments due no less frequently than monthly, due in substantially equal amounts, and due in substantially equal intervals. Proposed § 1041.11(b)(4) reflects the NCUA guidance for the repayment structure of Payday Alternative Loans. The Bureau is concerned that consumers may struggle to repay a loan due in a single payment, therefore suffering harms from becoming delinquent or defaulting on the loan or taking steps to avoid default on the covered loan and jeopardizing their ability to meet other financial obligations or basic living expenses.

Proposed comment 11(b)(4)-1 clarifies that payments may be due with greater frequency, such as biweekly. Proposed comment 11(b)(4)-2 clarifies that payments would be substantially equal in amount if each scheduled payment is equal to or within a small variation of the others. Proposed comment 11(b)(4)-3 clarifies that the intervals for scheduled payments would be substantially equal if the payment schedule requires repayment on the same date each month or in the same number of days and also that lenders may disregard the effects of slight changes in the calendar. Proposed comment 11(b)(4)-3 further clarifies that proposed § 1041.11(b)(4) would not prohibit a lender from accepting prepayment on a loan made under § 1041.11.

Extended periods without a scheduled payment could subject the consumer to a payment shock when the eventual payment does come due, potentially prompting the need to reborrow, default, or suffer collateral harms from unaffordable payments. In contrast, monthly payments, when amortizing as discussed below, may facilitate repayment of the debt over the contractual term. Regularity of payments is particularly important given the exemption from the payment notice requirement of proposed § 1041.15(b).

Additionally, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii), the Bureau believes that loans with balloon payments pose particular risk to consumers. For example, the Bureau found that vehicle title loans with a balloon payment were much more likely to end in default, compared to fully amortizing installment vehicle title loans and that the approach of the balloon payment coming due was associated with significant reborrowing. Given these considerations, the Bureau proposes to restrict the proposed conditional exemption from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements to loans that have two or more payments due no less frequently than monthly and that do not have a balloon payment. The Bureau believes that the conditions in proposed § 1041.11(b)(4) may be appropriate to reduce the risk of injury from an inability to satisfy payment obligations or loss of budgeting control associated with a loan under § 1041.11. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the proposed limitation would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the repayment structure requirements are appropriate for this conditional exemption. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether two is the appropriate minimum number of payments; and, if not, what would be the justification for more or fewer minimum payments. Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the proposed standards for substantially equal payments and substantially equal intervals provide sufficient guidance to lenders.

11(b)(5)

Proposed § 1041.11(b)(5) would limit the conditional exemption to loans that amortize completely over the loan term and would define the manner in which lenders must allocate consumer payments to amounts owed. The proposed amortization requirement for loans under § 1041.11 reflects the NCUA requirement that Payday Alternative Loans fully amortize over the loan term. Proposed comment 11(b)(5)-1 clarifies that the interest portion of each payment would need to be computed by applying a periodic interest rate to the outstanding balance due.

A fully amortizing loan facilitates consumer repayment of the loan principal from the beginning of repayment. This progress toward repayment means that a consumer who later faces difficulty making payments on such a loan will be better positioned to refinance on favorable terms or eventually retire the debt than would a consumer that had not made any progress repaying the loan principal. In finalizing the amortization requirement for Payday Alternative Loans, the NCUA noted that “requiring FCUs to fully amortize the loans will allow borrowers to make manageable payments over the term of the loan.” The Bureau believes that the amortization requirement would provide an important protection for loans conditionally exempt from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements: a steady amortization structure that applies a portion of each payment to principal and to interest and fees as they accrue and for which interest is calculated only by applying a fixed periodic rate to the outstanding balance of the loan facilitates consumer repayment of the loan and minimizes the risk of harm to a consumer in the event that a loan is unaffordable. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the proposed limitation would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether an amortization requirement in proposed § 1041.11 is appropriate; if so, whether the amortization method that the Bureau would require in proposed § 1041.11(b)(5) is appropriate for this conditional exemption; and, if not, what alternative method or methods should be required for loans made under proposed § 1041.11.

11(b)(6)

Proposed § 1041.11(b)(6) would limit the conditional exemption to loans that carry a total cost of credit of not more than the cost permissible for Federal credit unions to charge under NCUA regulations for Payday Alternative Loans. For Payday Alternative Loans, NCUA permits Federal credit unions to charge an interest rate of 1,000 basis points above the maximum interest rate established by the NCUA Board, and an application fee of not more than $20. Proposed comment 11(b)(6)-1 clarifies that proposed § 1041.11(b)(6) means that lenders must not charge any fees other than the interest rate and fees permitted for Federal credit unions under the NCUA regulations. As the NCUA explained in finalizing the amount of the permissible application fee for Payday Alternative Loans, “[Regulation Z] limits application fees to the recovery of costs associated with processing applications for credit that are charged to all consumers who apply . . . a maximum application fee of $20 is sufficient to allow FCUs to recoup the costs associated with processing an application for [a Payday Alternative Loan].”

By tying this conditional exemption to the judgment NCUA made with respect to the cost of credit, the proposed cost condition for loans under § 1041.11 would not establish a Federal usury limit, as the Bureau is not proposing to prohibit charging interest rates or APRs above the demarcation in proposed § 1041.11(b)(6). Rather, covered longer-term loans carrying a total cost of credit more than the cost in proposed § 1041.11(b)(6) could be made under § 1041.9, and comply with proposed §§ 1041.10 and 1041.15(b). The Bureau believes that by reflecting the cost criteria of the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan program, the proposed limitation would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices and this market operates efficiently to facilitate access to credit.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether to limit the conditional exemption to loans meeting certain cost criteria; and, if so, whether the NCUA cost limitation would be appropriate or what alternative cost limitation should be required for loans made under proposed § 1041.11.

11(c) Borrowing History Condition

Proposed § 1041.11(c) would exclude from the conditional exemption a loan that would otherwise satisfy the conditions of proposed § 1041.11 if the loan would result in the consumer being indebted on more than three outstanding loans made under § 1041.11 from the lender or its affiliates within a period of 180 days. Proposed § 1041.11(c) would require a lender to review its own records and the records of its affiliates prior to making a loan under proposed § 1041.11 to determine that the loan would not result in the consumer being indebted on more than three outstanding loans made under § 1041.11 from the lender or its affiliates within a period of 180 days. Proposed § 1041.11(c) generally mirrors the NCUA requirement that a Federal credit union not make more than three Payday Alternative Loans to any one consumer in a rolling 6-month period.

Proposed comment 11(c)-1 clarifies that a lender needs to review only its own records and the records of its affiliates to determine the consumer's borrowing history on covered longer-term loans under § 1041.11 and does not need to obtain information from other, unaffiliated lenders or a consumer report from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2). Proposed comment 11(c)-2 clarifies the manner in which a lender must calculate the 180-day period for the purposes of proposed § 1041.11(c). Proposed comment 11(c)-3 clarifies that proposed § 1041.11(c) would not limit the ability of lenders to make additional covered loans subject to the proposed ability-to-repay requirements or to one of the other proposed conditional exemptions. Proposed comment 11(c)-4 provides an illustrative example.

The Bureau also considered, and included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, a proposal to limit the maximum number of loans made under § 1041.11 to two in a 6-month period. Additionally, subsequent to the release of the Small Business Review Panel Outline, the Department of Defense finalized regulations under the Military Lending Act that effectively permits a Federal credit union subject to the requirements of the Federal Credit Union Act and NCUA regulations to make one Payday Alternative Loan to a servicemember or dependent during a rolling 12-month period without exceeding the Military Lending Act's limitation on the cost of consumer credit.

During the SBREFA process and other engagement, particularly with Federal credit unions, the Bureau received feedback indicating that layering an additional borrowing history condition on the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan requirements would impose burden on lenders currently offering these loans and would reduce the likelihood that lenders would choose to offer loans made under § 1041.11 if the Bureau's proposal is finalized. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing a borrowing history condition that mirrors this component of the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan condition. The Bureau believes that the proposed limitation would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices and consumers have access to this market.

In addition, the Bureau considered, and included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, two additional borrowing history conditions for loans under § 1041.11. The Bureau considered prohibiting lenders from making a loan under § 1041.11 to a consumer if the consumer had any other covered loan outstanding. The Bureau also considered incorporating another NCUA requirement related to borrowing history that prohibits Federal credit unions from making more than one Payday Alternative Loans at a time to a consumer.

The Bureau believes that measures to minimize the burden on lenders making loans under § 1041.11 may further the purposes of this proposed conditional exemption because the conditional exemption is intended to facilitate access to credit that is relatively lower-cost than other credit that would be covered by the Bureau's proposals. To that end, the Bureau believes that limiting the number of loans under § 1041.11 from the same lender or its affiliates—rather than from all lenders—would appropriately balance the consumer protection and access to credit objectives for this conditional exemption.

The Bureau is not proposing to incorporate the NCUA limitation on a lender making more than one Payday Alternative Loan at a time to a consumer. In proposing this requirement, the NCUA Board stated its belief that the restriction would, in concert with the other borrowing history limitations, “curtail a member's repetitive use and reliance on [payday alternative loans].” However, loans under the NCUA program are available only to members of the credit union, thereby providing a natural limit on the likelihood that a consumer would obtain such loans from multiple lenders. In contrast, the Bureau's exemption for loans under § 1041.11 would be available to all lenders in jurisdictions permitting such lending. Without the membership requirements of a credit union, the Bureau believes that a per-lender limit on concurrent loans is unlikely to yield meaningful consumer protections because a consumer could go to a different lender.

Similarly, the Bureau is not proposing to incorporate the NCUA prohibition on rolling over a Payday Alternative Loan. The Bureau believes that the requirements related to the structure of repayment in proposed § 1041.11(b)(4) and (b)(5) means that borrowers are unlikely to face a payment that prompts the need to rollover a loan under § 1041.11. While the Bureau is concerned about repeat borrowing—including rollovers—on covered loans, the Bureau does not believe that the NCUA limitation is necessary in the context of the other conditions and requirements that the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.11.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the borrowing history condition in proposed § 1041.11(c) is appropriate; whether three loans in a 180-day period achieves the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the consumer protection and access to credit objectives; and whether a different limitation, such as two loans in a 180-day period, would better achieve those objectives.

Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to also include other borrowing history conditions. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether a per-lender limitation on concurrent loans would be appropriate for this conditional exemption and on whether a prohibition on rolling over a loan would be appropriate for this conditional exemption. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether to prohibit lenders from making concurrent loans under § 1041.11; whether to prohibit lenders from making a loan under § 1041.11 to a consumer with an outstanding covered loan of any type, either with the same lender or its affiliates or with any lender. In this regard, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to require lenders to obtain a consumer report from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2) prior to making a loan under § 1041.11 and on the costs that such a requirement if finalized, would impose on lenders, including small entities, making loans under the conditional exemption.

11(d) Income Documentation Condition

Proposed § 1041.11(d) would require lenders to maintain policies and procedures for documenting proof of a consumer's recurring income and to comply with those policies and procedures in making loans under § 1041.11. Proposed § 1041.11(d) reflects one component of the NCUA requirement that Federal credit unions implement appropriate underwriting guidelines for Payday Alternative Loans, and instructing that underwriting standards should address required documentation for proof of employment or income. Proposed comment 11(d)-1 clarifies that proposed § 1041.11(d) would not require lenders to comply with the same procedures for loans under § 1041.11 as would be required under proposed § 1041.9(c)(3) for the ability-to-repay determination. Proposed comment 11(d)-1 further clarifies that § 1041.11(d) would permit lenders to use any procedure for documenting proof of recurring income that satisfies the lender's own underwriting obligations.

In the Small Business Review Panel Outline, the Bureau included a proposal that would require lenders to apply minimum underwriting standards and to verify income prior to making a loan under § 1041.11. Such standards would mirror the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan program guidance. However, the Bureau believes that appropriate underwriting standards for covered longer-term loans, including income verification procedures, are expressed in proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 and that imposing such conditions for loans under § 1041.11 would be inconsistent with the Bureau's objective of providing an alternative path for making covered longer-term loans without undertaking the proposed ability-to-repay determination. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing a requirement that a lender maintain and comply with policies and procedures regarding income documentation for loans under § 1041.11 as a minimum safeguard against unaffordable loans, but proposed § 1041.11(d) would be a more flexible standard than that in § 1041.9(c)(3), would not specify the manner in which a lender would be required to document proof of recurring income, and would not impose minimum underwriting standards for loans under § 1041.11. The Bureau believes this requirement would help ensure that, among other things, consumers have access to this market.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the income documentation condition in proposed § 1041.11(d) is appropriate; the costs that the proposed requirement would impose, if finalized, on lenders, including small entities; whether the requirement should specify the manner in which lenders must document income; and whether the requirement should include a minimum amount of income that must be documented.

11(e) Additional Requirements

Proposed § 1041.11(e) would impose additional requirements related to loans made under § 1041.11. The Bureau solicits comment on each of the requirements described below, including on the burden such requirements, if finalized, would impose on lenders, including small entities, making loans under § 1041.11. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether other or additional requirements would be appropriate for loans under § 1041.11 in order to fulfill the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the objectives related to consumer protection and access to credit.

11(e)(1)

Proposed § 1041.11(e)(1) would prohibit lenders from taking certain additional actions with regard to a loan made under § 1041.11. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the prohibitions are appropriate to advance the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and whether other actions should also be prohibited in connection with loans made under § 1041.11.

11(e)(1)(i)

Proposed § 1041.11(e)(1)(i) would prohibit lenders from imposing a prepayment penalty in connection with a loan made under § 1041.11. The Bureau is not proposing in this rulemaking to determine all instances in which prepayment penalties may raise consumer protection concerns. However, the Bureau believes that for loans qualifying for a conditional exemption under proposed § 1041.11, penalizing a consumer for prepaying a loan would be inconsistent with the consumer's expectation for the loan and may prevent consumers from repaying debt that they otherwise would be able to retire.

The Bureau also believes that this proposed restriction is consistent with the practices of Federal credit unions making loans under NCUA's Payday Alternative Loan Program. In light of these considerations, the Bureau believes that the proposed condition would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices and that this market operates transparently and efficiently.

The Bureau solicits comment on the extent to which the requirement in proposed § 1041.11(e)(1)(i) is appropriate and on any alternative ways of defining the prohibited conduct that would provide adequate protection to consumers while encouraging access to credit.

11(e)(1)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.11(e)(1)(ii) would prohibit lenders that hold a consumer's funds on deposit from, in response to an actual or expected delinquency or default on the loan made under proposed § 1041.11, sweeping the account to a negative balance, exercising a right of set-off to collect on the loan, or closing the account. Proposed comment 11(e)(1)(ii)-1 clarifies that the prohibition in § 1041.11(e)(1)(ii) applies regardless of the type of account in which the consumer's funds are held and also clarifies that the prohibition does not apply to transactions in which the lender does not hold any funds on deposit for the consumer. Proposed comment 11(e)(1)(ii)-2 clarifies that the prohibition in § 1041.11(e)(1)(ii) does not affect the ability of the lender to pursue other generally-available legal remedies; the proposed clarification is similar to a provision in the Bureau's Regulation Z, 1026.12(d)(2).

Because loans under § 1041.11 would be exempt from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements, the Bureau is concerned that in the event that a lender holds a consumer's funds on deposit and the loan turns out to be unaffordable to the consumer, the potential injury to a consumer could be exacerbated if the lender takes actions that cause the consumer's account to go to a negative balance or closes the consumer's account. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the proposed prohibition would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the prohibition in proposed § 1041.11(e)(1)(ii) would be appropriate and, alternatively, whether other restrictions related to treatment of a consumer's account held by a lender that makes a loan under § 1041.11 to the consumer would be appropriate. The Bureau also solicits comment, in particular from banks and credit unions or other lenders that hold consumer funds, on current practices taken in response to actual or expected delinquency or default related to sweeping consumer accounts to negative, exercising a right of set-off to collect on a loan, and closing consumer accounts. The Bureau recognizes that Federal credit unions are permitted under section 1757(11) of the Federal Credit Union Act to “impress and enforce a lien upon the shares and dividends of any member, to the extent of any loan made to him and any dues or charges payable by him”; the Bureau solicits comment on whether the proposed prohibition would raise concerns, including safety and soundness concerns, for Federal credit unions and other depository institutions. Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the same or similar condition would be appropriate for transactions in which a lender does not hold a consumer's funds on deposit.

11(e)(2)

Proposed § 1041.11(e)(2) would require lenders to furnish information concerning a loan made under § 1041.11 either to each information system described in § 1041.16(b) or to a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. Lenders could select which type of furnishing to do.

The Bureau considered, and included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, a requirement that lenders obtain a consumer report from and furnish information concerning loans under § 1041.11 to registered information systems. During the SBREFA process and in outreach with industry and others, the Bureau received feedback from Federal credit unions and other lenders that such obligations would be a substantial burden and pose a barrier to making relatively small-dollar and relatively lower-cost loans. The Bureau understands that 75 percent of Federal credit unions that make Payday Alternative Loans include furnishing loan information to consumer reporting agencies in their program policies and procedures. However, from outreach to credit unions, the Bureau understands that these institutions generally do not furnish loan information to or obtain consumer reports from specialty consumer reporting agencies.

As proposed in § 1041.11(e)(2), lenders would not be required to furnish information about loans made under § 1041.11 to information systems described in proposed § 1041.16(b) if the lender instead furnishes information about that loan to a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. The Bureau believes that this furnishing requirement strikes the appropriate balance between minimizing burden on lenders that would make loans under § 1041.11 and establishing a reasonably comprehensive record of a consumer's borrowing history with respect to these loans, which would be useful for the other provisions of the Bureau's proposed rule that require assessing the amount and timing of a consumer's debt payments. In light of these considerations, the Bureau believes that the proposed requirement would help ensure that, among other things, this market operates efficiently to facilitate access to credit.

The Bureau solicits comment on the proposed furnishing requirement in § 1041.11(e)(2) and on the costs that the proposed requirement would impose, if finalized, on lenders, including small entities. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to require lenders to furnish in the manner set forth in proposed § 1041.11(e)(2) or whether to relieve lenders from a requirement to furnish information concerning loans made under § 1041.11. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to require lenders to furnish to multiple consumer reporting agencies that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis rather than only one. The Bureau also solicits comment on the extent to which lenders that currently make loans similar to those that would be permitted under proposed § 1041.11 currently furnish information to nationwide consumer reporting agencies or to specialty consumer reporting agencies.

11(e)(2)(i)

Proposed § 1041.11(e)(2)(i) would permit lenders to satisfy the requirement in § 1041.11(e)(2) by furnishing information concerning a loan made under § 1041.11 to each information system described in § 1041.16(b). Lenders furnishing in the manner provided for in proposed § 1041.11(e)(2)(i) would be required to furnish the loan information described in proposed § 1041.16(c).

11(e)(2)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.11(e)(2)(ii) would permit lenders to satisfy the requirement in § 1041.11(e)(2) by furnishing information concerning a loan made under § 1041.11 at the time of the lender's next regularly-scheduled furnishing of information to a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis or within 30 days of consummation, whichever is earlier. Proposed § 1041.11(e)(2)(ii) would further provide that “consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on a consumers on a nationwide basis” has the same meaning as in section 603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(p).

Section 1041.12 Conditional Exemption for Certain Covered Longer-Term Loans of Up to 24 Months' Duration

Background

Proposed § 1041.12 would provide a conditional exemption from §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) for certain covered longer-term loans that share certain features of loans made through accommodation lending programs and that are underwritten to achieve an annual portfolio default rate of not more than 5 percent. Proposed § 1041.12 would allow a lender to make a covered longer-term loan without making the ability-to-repay determination that would be required by proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 and without complying with the payment notice requirement of § 1041.15(b), provided that certain conditions and requirements are satisfied. The Bureau proposes this provision pursuant to its authority under section 1021 (b)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act to create conditional exemptions from rules issued under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Community banks and credit unions make a number of different types of underwritten loans to their customers. Based on the Bureau's engagement with industry, the Bureau understands that some of these underwritten consumer loans may be covered longer-term loans under the Bureau's proposed rule. The loans that would be covered longer-term loans tend to carry a relatively low periodic interest rate, but with an origination fee that would cause the total cost of credit to exceed 36 percent particularly with regard to smaller sized loans, and involve a leveraged payment mechanism or security interest in a vehicle title. From outreach to lenders, the Bureau understands that, in general, these loans tend to be a relatively small percentage of a lender's total lending portfolio and are made as an accommodation for a community bank or credit union's existing customers. In this regard, as noted in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.2(a)(11), the Bureau is soliciting comment on whether to narrow the definition of lender based on the quantity of covered loans an entity offers, and, if so, how to define such a de minimis test.

With proposed § 1041.12, the Bureau would allow the relatively lower-cost accommodation lending taking place today to continue without requiring lenders to undertake the ability-to-repay determination that would be required by proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 and without requiring lenders to comply with the payment notice requirement of proposed § 1041.15(b). The conditions for making a loan under § 1041.12 reflect certain requirements that the Bureau has observed are characteristic of relatively lower-cost loans made by many community banks as an accommodation to existing customers and limitations that the Bureau believes will minimize the risk of harm to consumers from a conditional exemption for certain covered longer-term loans. In particular, proposed § 1041.12 would provide a conditional exemption from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements for closed-end covered longer-term loans underwritten in accordance with a underwriting method designed to result in a portfolio default rate of not more than 5 percent per year, carrying a modified total cost of credit of less than or equal to 36 percent, and meeting certain additional condition and requirements.

The Small Business Review Panel Report recommended that the Bureau solicit comment on additional options for alternative requirements for making covered longer-term loans without satisfying the proposed ability-to-repay requirements. Considering the feedback from SERs, the recommendation of the Small Business Review Panel Report, and observations from other outreach following publication of the Small Business Review Panel Outline, the Bureau is proposing an additional alternative path for making covered longer-term loans in proposed § 1041.12 and is soliciting comment on whether other alternatives also would be appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Bureau considered limiting the availability of the conditional exemption under proposed § 1041.12 to certain categories of financial institutions, potentially defined by size, preexisting customers relationship, or charter type. In proposing to permit all lenders to make covered longer-term loans under § 1041.12, the Bureau endeavors to facilitate access to credit, regardless of the size or charter status of the entity, within the important limits imposed by more protective State, local, and tribal laws. Extending the conditional exemption to all financial institutions that choose to make loans of the type provided for in § 1041.12 furthers that purpose.

The Bureau seeks comment generally on whether to provide a conditional exemption from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements for covered longer-term loans sharing the features of accommodation lending, subject to the loan term conditions and underwriting method requirements in proposed § 1041.12. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether proposed § 1041.12 would appropriately balance the concerns for access to credit and consumer protection; on the costs and other burdens that proposed § 1041.12 would, if finalized, impose on lenders, including small entities; and on each of the specific conditions and requirements under proposed § 1041.12, discussed below.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether a different set of conditions for covered longer-term loans exempt from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements would more appropriately achieve the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, and, if so, what, specifically, such an alternative set of conditions would be. For example, as discussed below with regard to the alternative considered, the Bureau seeks comment on whether such an alternative should include a maximum payment-to-income ratio; the Bureau also seeks comment on whether such an alternative should include a maximum duration, minimum number of payments, amortization requirement, limitation on prepayment penalties and collections mechanisms, limitation on permissible cost structure, borrowing history conditions, or minimum underwriting requirements. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether to provide a conditional exemption for loans in a portfolio with low levels of delinquency or default measured as a portion of originated loans and, if so, what the appropriate metric for such a conditional exemption would be and what additional conditions and requirement may be appropriate for such a conditional exception. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on the extent to which lenders interested in making a covered longer-term loan conditionally exempt from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements anticipate making loans subject to the requirements of proposed § 1041.12, as compared to proposed § 1041.11.

Alternative Considered

The Bureau developed the proposed alternative path to making covered longer-term loans reflected in proposed § 1041.12 following feedback from SERs during the SBREFA process and other lenders in outreach following publication of the Small Business Review Panel Outline. Going into the SBREFA process, the Bureau had focused primarily on two proposals for alternative requirements for covered longer-term loans: The NCUA-type loan alternative, now reflected in proposed § 1041.11, and an alternative that would have permitted lending so long as the maximum payment-to-income ratio did not exceed a specified threshold, such as 5 percent, and the loan met certain other conditions and requirements.

The Bureau modeled the payment-to-income alternative on a proposal put forth by The Pew Charitable Trusts, a public policy research organization, based on analysis of the small dollar lending markets. In considering the proposal for maximum payment-to-income loans included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline, the Bureau believed that this alternative would be a burden-reduction measure, particularly if many of these loans would also satisfy the ability-to-repay requirements.

The Bureau has received communications from over 30 credit unions, including several large credit unions, supportive of the 5 percent payment-to-income ratio alternative. Several large banks have also reported to the Bureau that they believe the 5 percent payment-to-income ratio would provide a workable underwriting rule for use in extending credit to their customers.

However, the Bureau also received feedback from some of the SERs asserting that the 5 percent payment-to-income ratio that the Bureau contemplated proposing was too low to allow the lenders to make a significant number of loans and that the maximum permissible duration was too short to be economically viable for their businesses. The Bureau also heard feedback from other lenders following publication of the Small Business Review Panel Outline echoing similar concerns. In particular, during the SBREFA process and subsequent outreach, the Bureau learned that neither of the alternative sets of requirements included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline would capture a category of loans being made by community banks and credit unions as an accommodation to existing customers and that do not appear to present a risk of the type of consumer injury that is the focus of the Bureau's proposed requirement to determine ability to repay. In evaluating the proposal, the Bureau became concerned that a payment-to-income ratio higher than 5 percent might be needed to provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate existing lending programs at many community banks and credit unions.

The Bureau also received feedback from some consumer groups asserting that the maximum payment-to-income alternative for making covered longer-term loans provided inadequate protections to minimize the risk that consumers would face a payment obligation that they could not afford and the risk of harm in the event of such inability to satisfy payment obligations. Some consumer groups expressed concern that even at 5 percent the maximum payment-to-income ratio was too high for some consumers to maintain for six months, the maximum loan duration being considered by the Bureau during the SBREFA process. These groups expressed still greater concern about the higher payment-to-income ratios sought by industry.

The Bureau's research does suggest that there is a correlation between the payment-to-income ratio and levels of default. However, that research does not point to a clear inflection point below which the payment-to-income ratio leads to positive outcomes for consumers and above which it leads to negative outcomes. Moreover, at any payment-to-income threshold, there will be some consumers for whom a covered loan would be unaffordable; the Bureau believes that higher ratios could increase the risk of consumer injury from loans made under an alternative to the proposed ability-to-repay requirements.

Faced with these trade-offs, the Bureau developed proposed § 1041.12 as an alternative that it believes provides important structural conditions and back-end protections, while also permitting accommodation lenders a more flexible option than the conditional exemption under proposed § 1041.11. The Bureau notes, moreover, that to the extent that a particular payment-to-income ratio produces the result required under § 1041.12, a lender may include that ratio in the lender's underwriting methodology. The Bureau believes that proposed § 1041.12 would provide a conditional exemption for at least some lending programs that would satisfy a payment-to-income test and provide lenders with flexibility to develop alternative underwriting methods satisfying the specified low portfolio default rate outcomes. The Bureau believes the proposal would also provide consumers with important back-end protections in the event that a lender's underwriting does not achieve those portfolio default rate outcomes. In particular, the Bureau believes that this alternative would capture the category of loans discussed above that are being made by community banks and credit unions as an accommodation to existing customers and that do not appear to present a risk of the type of consumer injury that is the focus of the Bureau's proposed requirement to determine ability-to-repay.

At the same time, the Bureau recognizes that there may be lenders that would be prepared to make loans using a 5 percent payment-to-income alternative and that would not do so under the conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.12 because of the portfolio default rate requirement. Thus, while the Bureau is not proposing to create an alternative for loans with a maximum payment-to-income ratio, the Bureau broadly solicits comment on the advisability of such an approach. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether providing an alternative path for making loans with a maximum payment-to-income ratio would be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act; if so, what the appropriate payment-to-income ratio would be and what would be the basis for such a threshold; and what other consumer protections may be appropriate conditions as part of such an alternative path to lending. The Bureau further solicits comment on the extent to which lenders would make loans subject to a maximum payment-to-income ratio and not subject to the proposed ability-to-repay and notice requirements.

Legal Authority

Proposed § 1041.12 would establish an alternative set of requirements for covered short-term loans that, if complied with by lenders, would conditionally exempt them from the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8, the ability-to-repay requirements under proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10, and the payment notice requirement of proposed § 1041.15(b). The Bureau is proposing the requirements of proposed § 1041.12 pursuant to the Bureau's authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) to grant conditional exemptions in certain circumstances from rules issued by the Bureau under the Bureau's Dodd-Frank Act legal authorities.

Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) authorizes the Bureau to, by rule, “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any class of . . . consumer financial products or services” from any provision of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act or from any rule issued under Title X as the Bureau determines “necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives” of Title X. The purposes of Title X are set forth in Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(a), which provides that the Bureau shall implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently “for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that [such markets] are fair, transparent and competitive.”

The objectives of Title X are set forth in Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b). Section 1021(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Bureau to exercise its authorities under Federal consumer financial law for the purposes of ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services: (1) Consumers “are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(1)); (2) consumers “are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(2)); (3) “outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(3)); (4) “Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair completion” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(4)); and “markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation” (see Dodd-Frank Act section 1021(b)(5)).

When issuing an exemption under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A), the Bureau is required under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(B) to take into consideration, as appropriate, three factors. These enumerated factors are: (1) The total assets of the class of covered persons; (2) the volume of transactions involving consumer financial products or services in which the class of covered persons engages; and (3) existing provisions of law which are applicable to the consumer financial product or service and the extent to which such provisions provide consumers with adequate protections.

In general, the Bureau believes that providing a conditional exemption from proposed §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) for certain covered longer-term loans sharing the features of certain loans made through accommodation lending programs would help preserve access to credit in this market for consumers while providing important protections for consumers. The proposed conditional exemption would be a partial exemption meaning that loans under § 1041.12 would still be subject to all other provisions of the Bureau's proposed rule; for example, lenders would still be required to comply with the limitation on payment transfer attempts in proposed § 1041.14, the consumer rights notice in proposed § 1041.15(d), and the compliance program and record retention requirements in proposed § 1041.18.

The Bureau believes that proposed § 1041.12 would reduce the cost of compliance with the Bureau's proposal, if finalized, for lenders that would make covered longer-term loans meeting the proposed conditions by relieving lenders of the obligation to satisfy the requirements of proposed §§ 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b). The Bureau believes that the conditional exemption in proposed § 1041.12 is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including ensuring that “all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services” and that these markets “operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.” Specifically, the proposed conditional exemption is designed to facilitate access to credit by permitting lenders an alternative option for making covered longer-term loans, subject to important structural, cost, and borrowing history limitations.

The Bureau believes that these loans are a lower-cost, safer alternative in the market for payday, vehicle title, and installment loans and that many of these loans, while likely affordable to the consumer, are underwritten based on the financial institution's understanding of a consumer's financial situation without using a process that would satisfy the proposed ability-to-repay requirements under §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10. These loans, while covered longer-term loans under the Bureau's proposal, generally would be on the border of the cost threshold for coverage and contain important structural protections. In addition, the Bureau has not observed evidence that lenders making such accommodation loans participate in widespread questionable payment practices that warrant the proposed payment notice requirement in § 1041.15(b). The Bureau therefore believes that a conditional exemption for underwritten loans subject to certain structural, cost, and borrowing history limitations is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the objective of making credit available to consumers in a fair and transparent manner.

In consideration of these factors, the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.12 to provide lenders with an additional degree of flexibility to make these loans using the lender's own underwriting procedures, if the lender's loan portfolio meets specified outcomes. In particular, the Bureau proposes to provide an exemption from §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) for covered longer-term loans repaid in even and amortizing payments, meeting other conditions and requirements as to loan terms, borrowing history, and collection methods, subject to cost limitations, and underwritten with a methodology that produces low portfolio default rates.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether the Bureau should rely upon the Bureau's statutory exemption authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(3)(A) to exempt loans that satisfy the requirements of proposed § 1041.12 from the unfair and abusive practice identified in proposed § 1041.8, the ability-to-repay requirements proposed under §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10, and the payment notice requirement proposed under § 1041.15(b). Alternatively, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the requirements under proposed § 1041.12 should instead be based on the Bureau's authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1031(b) to prescribe rules identifying as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices and to include in such rules requirements for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices. In particular, the Bureau requests comment on whether loans made under proposed § 1041.12 should be expressly excluded from the identification of the unfair and abusive practice rather than exempted therefrom or whether the requirements for loans made under proposed § 1041.12 should be considered requirements for preventing unfair and abusive practices.

12(a) Conditional Exemption for Certain Covered Longer-Term Loans

Proposed § 1041.12(a) would provide a conditional exemption from §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) for covered longer-term loans satisfying the conditions and requirements in § 1041.12(b) through (f). Proposed § 1041.12(a) would not provide an exemption from any other provision of law. For example, proposed § 1041.12(a) would not permit loans to servicemembers and their dependents that would violate the Military Lending Act and its implementing regulations.

Proposed comment 12(a)-1 clarifies that, subject to the requirements of other applicable laws, § 1041.12(a) would permit all lenders to make loans under § 1041.12. Proposed comment 12(a)-1 further clarifies that § 1041.12(a) applies only to covered longer-term loans and so loans under § 1041.12 would have a duration of more than 45 days.

The Bureau is concerned that, given the financial circumstances of many borrowers, it may be difficult for many borrowers to repay a covered short-term loan without the need to reborrow in short order. The Bureau is proposing a separate alternative path for covered short-term loans under proposed § 1041.7, which would permit borrowers to obtain up to three back-to-back covered short-term loans with gradual reduction of the loan principal. The Bureau believes that restricting the availability of the proposed conditional exemption under § 1041.12 to covered longer-term loans would permit lenders an alternative way to make relatively lower-cost loans without disrupting the core features of the Bureau's proposed framework for regulation in the affected markets.

12(b) Loan Term Conditions

Proposed § 1041.12(b) would require loans under § 1041.12 to meet certain conditions as to the loan terms. Each proposed condition for a loan under § 1041.12 is described below. The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of the loan term conditions, including on the burden such conditions, if finalized, would impose on lenders, including small entities, making loans under § 1041.12. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether other or additional loan term conditions would be appropriate to carry out the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the consumer protection and access to credit objectives. Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to prohibit lenders from taking a vehicle security interest in connection with a covered longer-term loan that would be exempt from §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) under proposed § 1041.12.

12(b)(1)

Proposed § 1041.12(b)(1) would provide that the loan not be structured as open-end credit. The Bureau believes that the accommodation lending occurring today is designed to enable borrowers to spread the cost of a specific expense over a period of time and therefore generally takes the form of a closed-end loan. Furthermore, as with the alternative path to making covered longer-term loans under proposed § 1041.11, the Bureau believes that attempting to develop restrictions for open-end credit in proposed § 1041.12 would add undue complexity without providing appreciable benefit for consumers and that limiting the proposed conditional exemption from the ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements to closed-end loans would result in a simpler and more transparent transaction for both consumers and lenders. The Bureau therefore believes that this limitation would help ensure that, among other things, this market operates fairly and transparently.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether to permit open-end loans to be made under this conditional exemption; whether lenders would choose to make open-end loans under this conditional exemption if permitted to do so; and what the benefit for consumers would be of permitting such loans and what additional conditions then may be appropriate for proposed § 1041.12.

12(b)(2)

Proposed § 1041.12(b)(2) would limit the conditional exemption to covered longer-term loans with a duration of not more than 24 months. The Bureau believes that this is consistent with current practice among lenders that make accommodation loans to existing customers and would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices and this market operates efficiently to facilitate access to credit. The Bureau also notes that the proposed durational limitation for loans under § 1041.12 would permit lenders to make considerably longer loans than the maximum six month loans that would be permitted under proposed § 1041.11.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether to include a maximum duration for loans under § 1041.12 and, if so, whether 24 months is an appropriate maximum duration or, alternatively, what the justification would be for a longer or shorter period of time. The Bureau further solicits comment on whether the maximum duration condition would affect whether lenders would make loans under § 1041.12.

12(b)(3)

Proposed § 1041.12(b)(3) would limit the conditional exemption to loans that are repayable in two or more payments due no less frequently than monthly, due in substantially equal amounts, and due in substantially equal intervals. The Bureau is concerned that consumers may struggle to repay a loan due in a single payment, therefore suffering harms from becoming delinquent or defaulting on the loan or taking steps to avoid default on the covered loan and jeopardizing their ability to meet other financial obligations or basic living expenses.

Proposed comment 12(b)(3)-1 clarifies that payments may be due with greater frequency, such as biweekly. Proposed comment 12(b)(3)-2 clarifies that payments would be substantially equal in amount if each scheduled payment is equal to or within a small variation of the others. Proposed comment 12(b)(3)-3 clarifies that the intervals for scheduled payments would be substantially equal if the payment schedule requires repayment on the same date each month or in the same number of days and also that lenders may disregard the effects of slight changes in the calendar. Proposed comment 12(b)(3)-3 further clarifies that proposed § 1041.12(b)(3) would not prohibit a lender from accepting prepayment on a loan made under § 1041.12.

Extended periods without a scheduled payment could subject the consumer to a payment shock when the eventual payment does come due, potentially prompting the need to reborrow, default, or suffer collateral harms from unaffordable payments. In contrast, monthly payments, when amortizing as discussed below, may facilitate repayment of the debt over the contractual term. Regularity of payments is particularly important given the exemption from the payment notice requirement of proposed § 1041.15(b).

Additionally, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.9(b)(2)(ii), the Bureau believes that loans with balloon payments pose particular risk to consumers. For example, the Bureau found that vehicle title loans with a balloon payment are much more likely to end in default compared to amortizing installment vehicle title loans and that the approach of the balloon payment coming due is associated with significant reborrowing. Given these considerations, the Bureau proposes to restrict the conditional exemption from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements to loans that have two or more payments due no less frequently than monthly and that do not have a balloon payment. The Bureau believes that the conditions in proposed § 1041.12(b)(3) may be appropriate to reduce the risk of injury from an inability to satisfy payment obligations or loss of budgeting control associated with a loan under § 1041.12. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the proposed limitation would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the repayment structure requirements are appropriate for this conditional exemption. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether two is the appropriate minimum number of payments; and, if not, what would be the justification for more or fewer minimum payments. Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the proposed standards for substantially equal payments and substantially equal intervals provide sufficient guidance to lenders.

12(b)(4)

Proposed § 1041.12(b)(4) would limit the conditional exemption to loans that amortize completely over the loan term and would define the manner in which lenders must allocate consumer payments to amounts owed. The Bureau believes this limitation is consistent with current practice among community banks and credit unions making what would be covered longer-term loans as an accommodation to existing customers. Proposed comment 12(b)(4)-1 clarifies that the interest portion of each payment would need to be computed by applying a periodic interest rate to the outstanding balance due.

A fully amortizing loan facilitates consumer repayment of the loan principal from the beginning of repayment. This progress toward repayment means that a consumer who later faces difficulty making payments on such a loan will be better positioned to refinance on favorable terms or eventually retire the debt than would a consumer who had not made any progress repaying the loan principal. The Bureau believes that the amortization requirement would provide an important protection for loans conditionally exempt from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements: a steady amortization structure that applies a portion of each payment to principal and to interest and fees as they accrue and for which interest is calculated only by applying a fixed periodic rate to the outstanding balance of the loan facilitates consumer repayment of the loan and minimizes the risk of harm to a consumer in the event that a loan is unaffordable. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the proposed limitation would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether an amortization requirement in proposed § 1041.12 is appropriate; if so, whether the amortization method that the Bureau would require in proposed § 1041.12(b)(4) is appropriate for this conditional exemption; and, if not, what alternative method or methods should be required for loans made under proposed § 1041.12.

12(b)(5)

Proposed § 1041.12(b)(5) would limit the conditional exemption to loans that carry a modified total cost of credit of less than or equal to an annual rate of 36 percent. Proposed § 1041.12(b)(5) would specify that the modified total cost of credit is calculated in the same manner as total cost of credit in § 1041.2(a)(18)(iii)(A), excluding from the calculation a single origination fee meeting the criteria in § 1041.12(b)(5)(i) or (ii). Under these provisions, the lender could exclude either a single origination fee that represents a reasonable proportion of the lender's cost of underwriting loans under § 1041.12 or a single origination fee of no more than $50, regardless of the lender's actual costs of underwriting loans under § 1041.12. Proposed comment 12(b)(5)-1 describes the effects of the proposed cost limitation in § 1041.12(b)(5) and clarifies that loans meeting the criteria for covered longer-term loans under § 1041.3(b)(2) and that have a modified total cost of credit in compliance with § 1041.12(b)(5) remain covered longer-term loans.

The proposed cost condition for loans under § 1041.12 would not establish a Federal usury limit, as the Bureau is not proposing to prohibit charging interest rates or APRs above the demarcation in proposed § 1041.12(b)(5). Rather, covered longer-term loans carrying a modified total cost of credit more than the cost in proposed § 1041.12(b)(5) could be made under proposed § 1041.9, and comply with proposed §§ 1041.10 and 1041.15(b). The Bureau believes that the proposed limitation of the conditional exemption would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices and this market operates efficiently to facilitate access to credit.

The proposed cost structure in § 1041.12(b)(5) is intended to accommodate existing market practices related to offsetting the cost of underwriting while providing lenders with certainty about permissible costs in order to facilitate lending under proposed § 1041.12. Through its market monitoring and outreach activities, the Bureau has observed that lenders that today make what would be covered longer-term loans as an accommodation to existing customers generally charge an origination fee on top of a relatively low periodic interest rate. To the extent that the total cost of credit, including the origination fee and the interest rate, as well as any other costs associated with the loan, would be lower than 36 percent, such loans would not be covered longer-term loans under proposed § 1041.3(b)(2). However, at least for loans with shorter terms and smaller amounts, the origination fee may cause the total cost of credit to exceed 36 percent, notwithstanding the relatively low periodic interest rate. Such loans would be covered longer-term loans if the lender also obtains a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security.

The Bureau considered whether, for purposes of proposed § 1041.12(b)(5), to also exclude from the calculation of modified total cost of credit the cost of insurance products with respect to the lender's vehicle security interest. The Bureau understands that some community banks, credit unions, and other installment lenders may require consumers to pay for such insurance products when extending an installment loan secured by a consumer's vehicle. The Bureau believes, however, that if the consumer is required to purchase an insurance product as well as pay an origination fee on the loan, the risks that the loan will be unaffordable increase and that excluding the costs of ancillary insurance products from the modified total cost of credit under § 1041.12(b)(5) is not appropriate.

The proposed conditional exemption in § 1041.12 would allow lenders offering relatively low-cost loans as a customer accommodation to continue to do so while still having a mechanism to recover their costs without having to create a fundamentally different pricing structure. In consideration of these factors, the Bureau proposes in § 1041.12(b)(5) to permit lenders greater flexibility to make a covered longer-term loan without satisfying the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements if the loan meets important limitations on cost. The Bureau believes that limiting the conditional exemption in this way may help reduce the risk of consumer injury from potentially unaffordable loans.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether to limit the conditional exemption to loans meeting certain cost criteria; and, if so, whether the proposed pricing structure for loans eligible for the proposed exemption in § 1041.12 is appropriate to achieve the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the consumer protection and access to credit objectives, or what alternative pricing structure should be required for loans made under proposed § 1041.12. Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to exclude from the calculation of modified total cost of credit the cost of an insurance product associated with a loan made under § 1041.12. The Bureau further solicits comment on what alternative requirements would provide sufficient consumer protection for loans under § 1041.12 if the cost limitation is not included.

The Bureau's understanding about existing fee structures is based on its market monitoring and engagement activities and does not cover the entirety of the market for loan products that may be accommodated under proposed § 1041.12. In this regard, the Bureau solicits feedback on origination fees on loans made through accommodation lending programs and the individual cost components reflected in those fees, including, among others, labor costs, document preparation costs, and any costs of using the applicable underwriting methodology.

12(b)(5)(i)

Proposed § 1041.12(b)(5)(i) would permit a lender to exclude from the modified total cost of credit a single origination fee that represents a reasonable proportion of the lender's costs of underwriting loans made under § 1041.12. Proposed comment 12(b)(5)(i)-1 clarifies the standards for an origination fee to be a reasonable proportion of the lender's costs of underwriting, including specifying that the origination fee must reflect the lender's costs of underwriting loans made under § 1041.12 and that the lender may make a single determination of underwriting costs for all loans made under § 1041.12.

The Bureau solicits comment on the proposed standards for an origination fee to be a reasonable proportion of the lender's costs of underwriting.

12(b)(5)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.12(b)(5)(ii) would provide a safe harbor for a lender to exclude from the modified total cost of credit a single origination fee of $50. Proposed comment 12(b)(5)(ii)-1 clarifies that a lender may impose a single origination fee of not more than $50 without determining the costs associated with underwriting loans made under § 1041.12.

The Bureau believes that lenders are more likely to make loans under § 1041.12 if regulatory uncertainty about the permissible origination fee is minimized. Providing a safe harbor for a single origination fee of up to $50 may therefore be appropriate to advance the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau notes that for loans under $1,000, $50 was the median fee reported in the community bank survey described in part II.

The Bureau solicits comment on the proposed safe harbor for a single origination fee of $50, including whether such a safe harbor is appropriate and, if so, whether $50 is the appropriate amount for such a safe harbor.

12(c) Borrowing History Condition

Proposed § 1041.12(c) would exclude from the conditional exemption a loan that would otherwise satisfy the conditions of proposed § 1041.12 if the loan would result in the consumer being indebted on more than two outstanding loans made under § 1041.12 from the lender or its affiliates within a period of 180 days. Proposed § 1041.12(c) would require a lender to review its own records and the records of its affiliates prior to making a loan under proposed § 1041.12 to determine that the loan would not result in the consumer being indebted on more than two outstanding loans made under § 1041.12 from the lender or its affiliates within a period of 180 days.

Proposed comment 12(c)-1 clarifies that a lender needs to review only its own records and the records of its affiliates to determine the consumer's borrowing history on covered longer-term loans made under § 1041.12 and does not need to obtain information from other, unaffiliated lenders or a consumer report from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2). Proposed comment 12(c)-2 clarifies the manner in which a lender must calculate the 180-day period for the purposes of proposed § 1041.12(c). Proposed comment 12(c)-3 clarifies that proposed § 1041.12(c) would not limit the ability of lenders to make additional covered loans subject to the proposed ability-to-repay requirements or to one of the other proposed conditional exemptions. Proposed comment 12(c)-4 provides an illustrative example.

The Bureau believes that the borrowing history condition and the 180-day condition appropriately protects consumers against the risk of injury from potentially unaffordable loans under proposed § 1041.12. The Bureau believes that if a consumer seeks more than two loans made under § 1041.12 within a period of six months, such circumstances suggest that the prior loans may not have been affordable. In such circumstances, the Bureau believes it would be inappropriate to allow the lender to continue to make covered longer-term loans under § 1041.12, without making an ability-to-repay determination pursuant to proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 and providing the payment notice required by proposed § 1041.15(b). Furthermore, in the Bureau's view, two origination fees in a six-month period would sufficiently address the costs that a lender may incur in underwriting a loan under § 1041.12, making it possible for the lender to continue to make additional loans without charging additional originations fees. In such an instance, assuming the lender does not increase the total cost of credit, such loans would not be covered longer-term loans.

In proposed § 1041.11, the Bureau proposes to permit lenders to make three loans under that conditional exemption within a 180-day period, rather than the two loan limit in proposed § 1041.12(c). The requirement in proposed § 1041.11 is intended to reflect the requirement of the NCUA Payday Alternative Loan program. Further, proposed § 1041.11 would be limited to loans with a smaller application fee than the origination fee that would be permitted under § 1041.12(b)(5) and with a lower periodic interest rate. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to permit more loans with greater frequency under proposed § 1041.11 than under proposed § 1041.12.

During the SBREFA process, Bureau considered, and included in the Small Business Review Panel Outline with regard to the maximum payment-to-income alternative, prohibiting lenders from making a loan under § 1041.12 to a consumer if the consumer had any other covered loan outstanding. The Bureau believes that measures to minimize the burden on lenders making loans under § 1041.12 may further the purposes of this proposed conditional exemption, which is intended to facilitate access to credit that is relatively lower-cost than other credit that would be covered by the Bureau's proposals. To that end, the Bureau believes that limiting the number of loans under § 1041.12 from the same lender or its affiliates—rather than from all lenders—would appropriately balance the consumer protection and access to credit objectives for this conditional exemption.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the borrowing history condition in proposed § 1041.12(c) is appropriate; whether two loans in a 180-day period achieves the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the consumer protection and access to credit objectives; and whether a different limitation, such as one loan in a 180-day period or two loans in a 365-day period, would better achieve those objectives.

Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to also include other borrowing history conditions. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to prohibit lenders from making concurrent loans under § 1041.12; whether to prohibit lenders from making a loan under § 1041.12 to a consumer with an outstanding covered loan of any type, either with the same lender or its affiliates or with any lender. In this regard, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to require lenders to obtain a consumer report from an information system currently registered pursuant to § 1041.17(c)(2) or (d)(2) prior to making a loan under § 1041.12 and on the costs that such a requirement if finalized, would impose on lenders, including small entities, making loans under the conditional exemption.

12(d) Underwriting Method

Proposed § 1041.12(d) would require that lenders maintain and comply with their own policies and procedures for effectuating a method of underwriting loans made under § 1041.12 designed to result in a portfolio default rate of less than or equal to 5 percent per year on their portfolio of covered longer-term loans under § 1041.12. Proposed § 1041.12(d) would not specify the nature of the underwriting that a lender would be required to do; proposed comment 12(d)-1 clarifies that a lender's underwriting method may be based on the lender's prior experience or a lender's projections. Proposed § 1041.12(d)(1) would require lenders to calculate the portfolio default rate at least once every 12 months on an ongoing basis for loans made under § 1041.12. Proposed § 1041.12(d)(2) would require that if a lender's portfolio default rate for such loans exceeds 5 percent, the lender provides a timely refund of the origination fees charged on any loans included within the portfolio.

As discussed above, the Bureau understands that a variety of lenders—in particular, community banks and credit unions—regularly make to their existing customers loans that would be covered longer-term loans, generally underwrite such loans based on a variety of factors related to the lender's risk criteria and familiarity with the consumer, and that these loans are generally affordable to consumers, with low default and loss rates on those loans. The Bureau believes that permitting lenders to make underwritten covered longer-term loans without determining the consumer's ability to repay in accordance with proposed §§ 1041.9 and 1041.10 but with certain other protective conditions in place may be appropriate in the event that the lender maintains and complies with an underwriting method designed to yield a low portfolio default rate.

The Bureau believes that for a conditional exemption to the general requirement to determine ability to repay, setting a portfolio default rate at a low threshold is appropriate in order to prevent the conditional exemption to be used for loans likely to create significant risk of consumer harm. Further, the lenders that have described to the Bureau their current accommodation lending programs have all reported that they achieve portfolio default rates well below at 5 percent. The Bureau therefore believes that 5 percent would be an appropriate portfolio default rate threshold for the purposes of the conditional exemption in § 1041.12.

As an important back-end protection, proposed § 1041.12(d) would also require that lenders provide a refund of origination fees if the lender's portfolio default rate exceeds 5 percent. The Bureau believes that this requirement would discourage attempts by lenders to avoid the 5 percent portfolio default rate limit and would provide a predictable remedy for poorly-performing portfolios. In addition, the Bureau believes that this requirement provides a relatively simple mechanism to mitigate consumer injury in the event that a lender's underwriting methodology does not meet the proposed parameters of § 1041.12. In developing proposed § 1041.12(d), the Bureau considered including substantially more complicated metrics and remedial provisions. The Bureau decided not to propose such provisions based on several concerns, including a concern that other remedial provisions would be less effective at mitigating an incentive for lenders to exploit the conditional exemption in § 1041.12 in ways not intended by the Bureau and a concern that these would be unduly burdensome for lenders and the Bureau alike to administer. The Bureau believes that the proposed refund requirement would be sufficient to prevent abuse under proposed § 1041.12.

The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of proposed § 1041.12(d). In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the requirement that lenders maintain and comply with policies and procedures for effectuating an underwriting method is sufficiently clear to provide lenders with guidance as to their obligations under § 1041.12(d); and, if not, what would be an alternative underwriting requirement for loans under § 1041.12. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether lenders that fail to achieve a portfolio default rate of not more than 5 percent should be required to refund the origination fee charged to all consumers with outstanding loans under § 1041.12 and whether any additional remedial measures should be required. Further, the Bureau solicits comment on whether lenders who exceed the targeted portfolio default rate should be prevented from making loans under § 1041.12 for a subsequent period; and, if so, what such a period would be and what would be the justification for such a prohibition.

12(d)(1)

Proposed § 1041.12(d)(1) would require lenders making loans under § 1041.12 to calculate the lender's portfolio default rate for such loans at least once every 12 months. The portfolio default rate for each period would cover all loans made under § 1041.12 that were outstanding at any time during the preceding year. The Bureau believes that requiring lenders to calculate portfolio default rates for loans under § 1041.12 on an annual basis would provide a ready means of determining whether loans that were made under proposed § 1041.12 were the type contemplated by this conditional exemption. Proposed comment 12(d)(1)-1 clarifies that lenders must use the method set forth in § 1041.12(e) to calculate the portfolio default rate.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether an annual calculation is sufficient to achieve the objectives of proposed § 1041.12; and, if not, what an alternative period would be for regular calculation of the portfolio default rate. Further, the Bureau solicits comment on the burdens that proposed § 1041.12(d)(1), if finalized, would impose on lenders, including small entities, making loans under the conditional exemption.

12(d)(2)

Proposed § 1041.12(d)(2) would require that lenders with a portfolio default rate exceeding 5 percent per year refund to each consumer with a loan included in the portfolio any origination fee excluded from the modified total cost of credit pursuant to proposed § 1041.12(b)(5). Lenders would be required to provide such refunds within 30 calendar days of identifying the excessive portfolio default rate; a lender would be deemed to have timely refunded the fee to a consumer if the lender delivers payment to the consumer or places payment in the mail to the consumer within 30 calendar days. Failure to provide the timely refund required by proposed § 1041.12(d)(2) would result in a violation of proposed § 1041 with respect to those loans. Proposed comment 12(d)(2)-1 clarifies that a lender may satisfy the refund requirement by, at the consumer's election, depositing the refund into the consumer's deposit account. Proposed comment 12(d)(2)-2 clarifies that a lender that failed in a prior 12-month period to achieve a portfolio default rate of not more than 5 percent would not be prevented from making loans under § 1041.12 for a subsequent 12-month period, provided that the lender provides a timely refund of origination fees pursuant to proposed § 1041.12(d)(2).

The Bureau is concerned that absent this refund requirement, the conditional exemption contained in proposed § 1041.12 could be subject to abuse as lenders could claim that their underwriting methods were calibrated to achieve a portfolio default rate of not more than 5 percent per year on loans under § 1041.12 without ever achieving that threshold. The refund requirement is designed to eliminate an incentive that might otherwise exist for a lender to invoke proposed § 1041.12 to make covered longer-term loans conditionally exempt from proposed §§ 1041.8, 1041.9, 1041.10, and 1041.15(b) but without actually underwriting the loans. The Bureau believes that such a back-end protection may be appropriate to ensure that the § 1041.12 exemption is available only where there is robust, lender-driven underwriting. The proposed timing components in § 1041.12(d)(2) are similar to the cure provisions in the Bureau's Regulation X, 12 CFR 1024.7(i). The Bureau believes that the timing requirements may be suitable for refunds provided in the context of proposed § 1041.12.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether a back-end consumer protection is appropriate for loans under § 1041.12; if so, whether the proposed refund requirement in § 1041.12(d)(2) would advance the consumer protection and access to credit objectives for proposed § 1041.12; and whether an alternative back-end requirement may be more appropriate. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether an alternative requirement would better target the potential consumer injury from the lender's underwriting failure; for example, whether the Bureau should require lenders to cease all collections activities on delinquent or defaulted loans that are in a portfolio with a portfolio default rate exceeding 5 percent. Further, the Bureau seeks comment on whether other requirements would be necessary for the administration of the proposed refund requirement, including, for example, disgorgement of the amount of undelivered and uncashed refund checks. The Bureau also solicits comment on the proposed timing requirement, including whether 30 calendar days provides adequate time for lenders to process refund payments and whether it is appropriate to deem consumers to have timely received payment if the lender places payment in the mail by the required date. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on the costs that proposed § 1041.12(d)(2), if finalized, would impose on lenders, including small entities, making loans under § 1041.12.

12(e) Calculation of Portfolio Default Rate

Proposed § 1041.12(e) would prescribe the required method for calculating the portfolio default rate for loans made under § 1041.12. Proposed comment 12(e)-1 clarifies that lenders must use the method of calculation in proposed § 1041.12(e) regardless of the lender's own accounting methods. The Bureau believes that a standardized calculation of portfolio default rate is appropriate to measure compliance with the conditions of § 1041.12 and also would minimize the burden of such calculation on lenders that make loans under § 1041.12. Loss ratios are typically calculated as a percentage of average outstanding balances for a period of time, and the proposed definition follows this convention; rather than requiring that lenders calculate average daily balance, as many lenders do, the Bureau's proposed definition uses a simpler methodology to calculate the average outstanding balance by permitting lenders to take a simple average of month-end balances at the end of each month in the 12-month period.

The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed methodology for calculating portfolio default rate. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether requiring lenders to include loans that were either charged-off or that were delinquent for a consecutive period of 120 days or more during the 12-month period would appropriately capture the portfolio default rate and what would be the justification for selecting some other threshold for portfolio loans. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether to include in the calculation of portfolio default rates loans under § 1041.12 that have been refinanced and, if so, how best to accomplish this calculation. The Bureau further solicits comment on whether to permit lenders the option of using either average daily balances or, as proposed, average month-end balances, in the calculation. Additionally, the Bureau seeks comment on the timing requirements of proposed § 1041.12(e), including the frequency with which portfolio default rate must be calculated and the amount of time permitted to calculate the portfolio default rate following the last day of the applicable period.

12(e)(1)

Proposed § 1041.12(e)(1) would define portfolio default rate as the sum of the unpaid dollar amount on loans made under § 1041.12 that were either charged-off during the 12 months of the calculation period or were delinquent for a consecutive period of 120 days or more during the 12-month period for which the rate is being calculated, divided by the average month-end outstanding balances for all loans made under § 1041.12 for each month of the 12-month period.

12(e)(1)(i)

Proposed § 1041.12(e)(1)(i) would define the lender's numerator for the calculation of portfolio default rate as the sum of dollar amounts owed on all covered longer-term loans made under § 1041.12 that meet the criteria in either § 1041.12(e)(1)(i)(A) or (B).

12(e)(1)(i)(A)

Proposed § 1041.12(e)(1)(i)(A) would include in the sum for § 1041.12(e)(1)(i) dollar amounts owed on loans that were delinquent for a period of 120 consecutive days or more during the 12-month period for which the portfolio default rate is being calculated.

Under the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's uniform charge-off policy, depository institutions are generally required to charge-off closed-end credit at 120 days of delinquency. Non-depositories are under no similar obligation and their practices in charging off loans may vary. To achieve a uniform metric and a level playing field, the proposal would require that those loans that were delinquent for a consecutive 120 days or more be included in the calculation of the portfolio default rate, without regard to whether the loan was actually charged off by the lender.

12(e)(1)(i)(B)

Proposed § 1041.12(e)(1)(i)(B) would include in the sum for § 1041.12(e)(1)(i) dollar amounts owed on loans that the lender charged off during the 12-month period for which the portfolio default rate is being calculated, even if the loan was charged off by the lender before reaching the 120-day mark.

12(e)(1)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.12(e)(1)(ii) would define the lender's denominator for the portfolio default rate calculation as average of month-end outstanding balances owed on all covered longer-term loans made under § 1041.12 for each month of the 12-month period included in the calculation.

12(e)(2)

Proposed § 1041.12(e)(2) would require lenders to include in the calculation of the portfolio default rate all loans made under § 1041.12 that are outstanding at any point during the 12-month period for which the rate is calculated; proposed comment 12(e)(2)-1 clarifies that the relevant portfolio of loans includes loans originated by the lender for which assets are held off the lender's balance sheet, as well as on-balance sheet loans.

12(e)(3)

Proposed § 1041.12(e)(3) would specify that a loan is considered 120 days delinquent even if the loan is re-aged by the lender—i.e., the lender has changed the delinquency status of the loan—prior to the 120th day, unless the consumer has made at least one full payment and the re-aging is for a period equivalent to the period for which the consumer made the payment.

12(e)(4)

Proposed § 1041.12(e)(4) would require lenders to make the portfolio default rate calculation within 90 days of the end of the 12-month period reflected in the portfolio. Proposed comment 12(e)(4)-1 clarifies the timing of the required calculation.

12(f) Additional requirements

Proposed § 1041.12(f) would impose additional requirements related to loans made under § 1041.12. The Bureau solicits comment on each of the requirements described below, including on the burden such requirements, if finalized, would impose on lenders, including small entities, making loans under § 1041.12. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether other or additional requirements would be appropriate for loans under § 1041.12 in order to fulfill the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the objectives related to consumer protection and access to credit.

12(f)(1)

Proposed § 1041.12(f)(1) would prohibit lenders from taking certain additional actions with regard to a loan made under § 1041.12. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the prohibitions are appropriate to advance the objectives of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and whether other actions should also be prohibited in connection with loans made under § 1041.12.

12(f)(1)(i)

Proposed § 1041.12(f)(1)(i) would prohibit lenders from imposing a prepayment penalty in connection with a loan made under § 1041.12. The Bureau is not proposing in this rulemaking to determine all instances in which prepayment penalties may raise consumer protection concerns. However, the Bureau believes that for loans qualifying for a conditional exemption under proposed § 1041.12, penalizing a consumer for prepaying a loan would be inconsistent with the consumer's expectation for the loan and may prevent consumers from repaying debt that they otherwise would be able to retire.

The Bureau also believes that this proposed restriction is consistent with the current practice of community banks and credit unions. From outreach to these lenders, the Bureau understands that lenders that make what would be covered longer-term loans as an accommodation often do so to help existing customers address a particular financial need and are interested in having their customers repay as soon as they are able. In light of these considerations, the Bureau believes that the proposed condition would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices.

The Bureau solicits comment on the extent to which the requirement in proposed § 1041.12(f)(1)(i) is appropriate and on any alternative ways of defining the prohibited conduct that would provide adequate protection to consumers while encouraging access to credit.

12(f)(1)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.12(f)(1)(ii) would prohibit lenders that hold a consumer's finds on deposit from, in response to an actual or expected delinquency or default on the loan made under proposed § 1041.12, sweeping the account to a negative balance, exercising a right of set-off to collect on the loan, or closing the account. Proposed comment 12(f)(1)(ii)-1 clarifies that the prohibition in § 1041.12(f)(1)(ii) applies regardless of the type of account in which the consumer's funds are held and also clarifies that the prohibition does not apply to transactions in which the lender does not hold any funds on deposit for the consumer. Proposed comment 12(f)(1)(ii)-2 clarifies that the prohibition in § 1041.12(f)(1)(ii) does not affect the ability of the lender to pursue other generally-available legal remedies; the proposed clarification is similar to a provision in the Bureau's Regulation Z, 1026.12(d)(2).

Because loans under § 1041.12 would be exempt from the proposed ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements, the Bureau is concerned that in the event that a lender holds a consumer's funds on deposit and the loan turns out to be unaffordable to the consumer, the potential injury to a consumer could be exacerbated if the lender takes actions that cause the consumer's account to go to a negative balance or closes the consumer's account. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the proposed prohibition would help ensure that, among other things, consumers are protected from unfair or abusive practices.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the prohibition in proposed § 1041.12(f)(1)(ii) would be appropriate, and, alternatively, whether other restrictions related to treatment of a consumer's account by a lender that makes a loan under § 1041.12 to the consumer would be appropriate. The Bureau also solicits comment, in particular from banks and credit unions or other lenders that hold consumer funds, on current practices taken in response to actual or expected delinquency or default related to sweeping consumer accounts to negative, exercising a right of set-off to collect on a loan, and closing consumer accounts. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether the proposed condition would create safety and soundness concerns for depository institutions. Additionally, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the same or similar condition would be appropriate for transactions in which a lender does not hold a consumer's funds on deposit.

12(f)(2)

Proposed § 1041.12(f)(2) would require lenders to furnish information concerning a loan made under § 1041.12 either to each information system described in § 1041.16(b) or to a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. Lenders could select which type of furnishing to do.

During the SBREFA process and in outreach with industry and others, the Bureau received feedback about requiring lenders that would make covered longer-term loans under a conditional exemption to the ability-to-repay requirements to obtain a consumer report from and furnish loan information to a specialty consumer reporting agency as a condition of making such loans. Lenders noted that the then-contemplated furnishing obligations would be a substantial burden and pose a barrier to making relatively lower-cost loans. From outreach with community banks and credit unions, the Bureau understands that many financial institutions with accommodation lending programs currently furnish loan information to a nationwide consumer reporting agency. However, the Bureau understands that these institutions generally do not furnish information concerning the loan to or obtain consumer reports from specialty consumer reporting agencies.

As proposed in § 1041.12(f)(2), lenders would not be required to furnish information about loans made under § 1041.12 to information systems described in proposed § 1041.16(b) if the lender instead furnishes information about that loan to a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. The Bureau believes that this furnishing requirement strikes the appropriate balance between minimizing burden on lenders that would make loans under § 1041.12 and establishing a reasonably comprehensive record of a consumer's borrowing history with respect to these loans, which would be useful for the other provisions of the Bureau's proposed rule that require assessing the amount and timing of a consumer's debt payments. In light of these considerations, the Bureau believes that the proposed requirement would help ensure that, among other things, this market operates efficiently to facilitate access to credit.

The Bureau solicits comment on the proposed furnishing requirement in § 1041.12(f)(2) and on the costs that the proposed requirement would impose, if finalized, on lenders, including small entities. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to require lenders to furnish in the manner set forth in proposed § 1041.12(f)(2) or whether to relieve lenders from a requirement to furnish information concerning loans made under § 1041.12. In addition, the Bureau solicits comment on whether to require lenders to furnish to multiple consumer reporting agencies that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis rather than only one. The Bureau also solicits comment on the extent to which lenders that currently make loans similar to those that would be permitted under proposed § 1041.12 currently furnish information to nationwide consumer reporting agencies or to specialty consumer reporting agencies.

12(f)(2)(i)

Proposed § 1041.12(f)(2)(i) would permit lenders to satisfy the requirement in § 1041.12(f)(2) by furnishing information concerning a loan made under § 1041.12 to each information system described in § 1041.16(b). Lenders furnishing in the manner provided for in proposed § 1041.12(f)(2)(i) would be required to furnish the loan information described in proposed § 1041.16(c).

12(f)(2)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.12(f)(2)(ii) would permit lenders to satisfy the requirement in § 1041.12(f)(2) by furnishing information concerning a loan made under § 1041.12 at the time of the lender's next regularly-scheduled furnishing of information to a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis or within 30 days of consummation, whichever is earlier. Proposed § 1041.12(f)(2)(ii) would further provide that “consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on a consumers on a nationwide basis” has the same meaning as in section 603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(p).

Subpart D—Payment Practices

In proposed § 1041.13, the Bureau proposes to identify it as an unfair and abusive act or practice for a lender to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after the lender's second consecutive attempt to withdraw payment from the account has failed due to a lack of sufficient funds, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account. To avoid committing this unfair and abusive practice, a lender would have to cease attempting to withdraw payments from the consumer's account or obtain a new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals.

Proposed § 1041.14 would prevent the unlawful practice by prohibiting further payment withdrawal attempts after two unsuccessful attempts in succession, except when the lender has obtained a new and specific authorization for further withdrawals. Proposed § 1041.14 also includes requirements for determining when the prohibition on further payment withdrawal attempts has been triggered and for obtaining a consumer's new and specific authorization to make additional withdrawals from the consumer's account.

Proposed § 1041.15 would provide a complementary set of interventions to require lenders to provide a notice to a consumer prior to initiating a payment withdrawal from the consumer's account. Proposed § 1041.15 also would require lenders to provide a alerting consumers to the fact that two consecutive payment withdrawal attempts to their accounts have failed—thus triggering operation of the requirements in proposed § 1041.14(b)—so that consumers can better understand their repayment options and obligations in light of their accounts' severely distressed condition. The two payments-related sections thus complement and reinforce each other.

The predicate for the proposed identification of an unfair and abusive act or practice in proposed § 1041.13—and thus for the prevention requirements contained in proposed § 1041.14—is a set of preliminary findings with respect to certain payment practices for covered loans and the impact on consumers of those practices. Those preliminary findings are set forth below in Market Concerns—Payments. After laying out these preliminary findings, the Bureau sets forth its reasons for proposing to identify as unfair and abusive the practice described in proposed § 1041.13. The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of this subpart, including the intersection of the proposed interventions with existing State, tribal, and local laws and whether additional or alternative protections should be considered to address the core harms discussed below.

Market Concerns—Payments

At the time of loan origination, it is a common practice among many lenders to obtain authorization to initiate payment withdrawal attempts from the consumer's transaction account. Such authorization provides lenders with the ability to initiate withdrawals without further action from the consumer, including authorization for payment methods like paper checks, ACH transfers, and debit and prepaid cards. Like other industries that commonly use such authorizations for future withdrawals, consumers and lenders have found that they can be a substantial convenience for both parties. However, they also expose the consumer to a range of potential harms if the authorizations are not executed as expected. Indeed, Congress has recognized that such authorizations can give lenders a special kind of leverage over borrowers, for instance by prohibiting in the Electronic Fund Transfer Act the conditioning of credit on the consumer granting authorizations for a series of recurring electronic transfers over time.

This section reviews the available evidence on the outcomes that consumers experience when payday and payday installment lenders obtain and use the ability to initiate withdrawals from consumers' accounts. As detailed below, the Bureau is concerned that despite various regulatory requirements, lenders in this market are using their ability to initiate payment withdrawals in ways that harm consumers. Moreover, the Bureau is concerned that, in practice, consumers have little ability to protect themselves from these practices, and that private network attempts to restrict these behaviors are limited in various ways.

The Bureau's research with respect to payments practices has focused on online payday and payday installment loans. The Bureau has done so because, with an online loan, payment attempts generally occur through the ACH network and thus can be readily tracked at the account and lender level by using descriptive information in the ACH file. Other publicly available data indicate that returned payments likewise occur with great frequency in the storefront payday market; indeed, a comparison of this data with the Bureau's findings suggests that the risks to consumers with respect to failed payments may be as significant or even greater in the storefront market than in the online market.

In brief, the Bureau preliminarily finds:

• Lenders in these markets often take broad, ambiguous payment authorizations from consumers and vary how they use these authorizations, thereby increasing the risk that consumers will be surprised by the amount, timing, or channel of a particular payment and will be charged overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees as a result.
• When a particular withdrawal attempt fails, lenders in these markets often make repeated attempts at re-presentment, thereby further exacerbating the fees imposed on consumers.
• These cumulative practices contribute to return rates that vastly exceed those in other markets, substantially increasing consumers' costs of borrowing, their overall financial difficulties, and the risk that they will lose their accounts.
• Consumers have little practicable ability to protect themselves from these practices.
• Private network protections necessarily have limited reach and impact, and are subject to change.

1. Variation in Timing, Frequency, and Amount of Payments

As discussed above in part II D, obtaining authorization to initiate withdrawals from consumers' transaction accounts is a standard practice among payday and payday installment lenders. Lenders often control the parameters of how these authorizations are used. Storefront payday lenders typically obtain a post-dated paper check signed by the consumer, which can in fact be deposited before the date listed and can be converted into an ACH withdrawal. Online lenders typically obtain bank account information and authorizations to initiate ACH withdrawals from the consumer's account as part of the consumers' agreement to receive the funds electronically. Many lenders obtain authorization for multiple payment methods, such as taking a post-dated check along with the consumer's ACH authorization or debit card information. Banks and credit unions often have additional payment channel options, for instance by using internal transfers from a consumer's deposit account to collect loan payments.

Once lenders have obtained the authorizations, there is significant evidence that payday and payday installment lenders frequently execute the withdrawals in ways that consumers do not expect. In some cases these actions may violate authorizations, contract documents, Federal and State laws, and/or private network rules, and in other cases they may exploit the flexibility provided by these sources, particularly when the underlying contract materials and authorizations are broadly or vaguely phrased. The unpredictability for consumers is often exacerbated by the fact that lenders often also obtain authorizations to withdraw varying amounts up to the full loan amount, in an apparent attempt to bypass EFTA notification requirements that would otherwise require notification of transfers of varying amount.

These various practices increase the risk that the payment attempt will be made in a way that triggers fees on a consumer's account. As discussed in part II D., unsuccessful payment attempts typically trigger bank fees. According to deposit account agreements, banks charge a non-sufficient funds fee of approximately $34 for returned ACH and check payments. Some prepaid card providers charge fees for returned or declined payments. Even if the payment goes through, the payment may exceed the funds available in the consumer's account, thereby triggering an overdraft fee of approximately $34, and in some cases “extended” overdraft fees, ranging from $5 to $38.50 if the consumer is unable to clear the overdraft within a specified period of time. These failed payment fees charged to the consumer's deposit account may be exacerbated by returned payment and late fees charged by lenders, since many lenders also charge a returned-item fee for any returned check, returned electronic payment, or other returned payment device. The Bureau is aware of some depository institutions that have charged overdraft and NSF fees for payments made within the institutions' internal systems, including a depository institution that charged overdraft and NSF fees on payments related to its small dollar loan product.

Despite these potential risks to consumers, many lenders vary the timing, frequency, and amount of presentments over the course of the lending relationship. For example, the Bureau has received a number of consumer complaints about lenders initiating payments before the due date, sometimes causing the borrower's accounts to incur NSF or overdraft fees. Lenders also appear to use account access to collect fees in addition to regular loan payments. The Bureau has received consumer complaints about bank fees triggered when lenders initiated payments for more than the scheduled payment amount. The Bureau is also aware of payday and payday installment lender policies to vary the days on which a payment is initiated based on prior payment history, payment method, and predictive products provided by third parties. Bureau analysis of online loan payments shows differences in how lenders space out payment attempts and vary the amounts of such attempts in situations when a payment attempt has previously failed.

Same-Day Attempts

Some lenders make multiple attempts to collect payment on the same day or over a period of time, contributing to the unpredictable nature of how payment attempts will be made and further exacerbating fees on consumer accounts. For example, the Bureau has observed storefront and online payday and payday installment lenders that, as a matter of course, break payment attempts down into multiple attempts on the same day after an initial attempt fails. This practice has the effect of increasing the number of NSF or overdraft fees for consumers because, in most cases when the account lacks sufficient funds to pay the balance due, all attempts will trigger NSF or overdraft fees. In the Bureau's analysis of online ACH payments, approximately 35 percent of the payments were attempted on the same day as another payment attempt. This includes situations in which a lender breaks down a payment into three attempts in 1 day (4 percent of payments observed) and four or more attempts in 1 day (2 percent of payments observed). The most extreme practice the Bureau has observed was a lender who attempted to collect payment from a single account 11 times in one day. The Bureau also has received consumer complaints about lenders making multiple attempts to collect in one day, including an instance of a lender making nine payment attempts in a single day.

When multiple payment requests are submitted to a single account on the same day by a payday lender, the payment attempts usually all succeed (76 percent) or all fail (21 percent), leaving only 3 percent of cases where one but not all attempts succeed. In other words, multiple presentments are seven times more likely to result in multiple NSF events for the consumer than to result in a partial collection by the lender.

Re-Presentment

Moreover, when a lender's presentment or multiple presentments on a single day fail, lenders typically attempt to collect payment again multiple times on subsequent days. According to CFPB analysis of online ACH payments, 75 percent of ACH payments presented by online payday lenders that initially fail are re-presented by the lender. After a second failed attempt, 66 percent of failed payments are re-presented, and 50 percent are re-presented after three failures. Consumers have complained to the Bureau that lenders attempt to make several debits on their accounts within a short period of time, including one consumer who had taken out multiple loans from several online payday lenders and reported that the consumer's bank account was subject to 59 payment attempts over a 2 month period.

Lenders appear more likely to deviate from the payment schedule after there has been a failed payment attempt. According to Bureau analysis, 60 percent of payment attempts following a failed payment came within 1-7 days of the initial failed attempt, compared with only 3 percent of payment attempts following a successful payment. The Bureau observed a lender that, after a returned payment, made a payment presentment every week for several weeks. Some lenders present again after 30 or 90 days.

In addition to deviations from the payment schedule, some lenders adopt other divergent practices to collect post-failure payments. For example, the Bureau found that after an initial failure, one storefront payday and payday installment lender had a practice of breaking an ACH payment into three smaller pieces on the consumer's next payday: one for 50 percent of the amount due, one for 30 percent of the amount due, and one for 20 percent of the amount due. Approximately 80 percent of these smaller attempts resulted in all three presentments being returned for non-sufficient funds.

2. Cumulative Impacts

These practices among payday and payday installment lenders have substantial cumulative impacts on consumers. Industry analyses, outreach, and Bureau research suggest that the industry is an extreme outlier with regard to the rate of returned items. As a result of payment practices in these industries, consumers suffer significant non-sufficient funds, overdraft, and lender fees that substantially increase financial distress and the cumulative costs of their loans.

Outlier Return Rates

Financial institution analysis and Bureau outreach indicate that the payday and payday installment industry is an extreme outlier with regard to the high rate of returned items generated. These returns are most often for non-sufficient funds, but also include transactions that consumers have stopped payment on or reported as unauthorized. The high rate of returned payment attempts suggests problems in the underlying practices to obtain consumer authorization and that the industry is causing a disproportionate amount of harm relative to other markets.

A major financial institution has released analysis of its consumer depository account data to estimate ACH return rates for payday lenders, including both storefront and online companies. In a 2014 analysis of its consumer account data, the institution found that industry lenders had an overall return rate of 25 percent for ACH payments. The institution observed individual lender return rates ranging from 5 percent to almost 50 percent. In contrast, the average return rate for debit transactions in the ACH network across all industries was just 1.36 percent. Among individual industries, the industry with the next highest return rate was cable television at 2.9 percent, then mobile telephones at 1.7 percent, insurance at 1.2 percent, auto and mortgage at 0.8 percent, utilities at 0.4 percent, and credit cards at 0.4 percent.

In addition to this combined financial institution analysis, Bureau research and outreach suggest extremely high rates of returned payments for both storefront and online lenders. Storefront lenders, for example, report failure rates of approximately 60 to 80 percent when they deposit consumers' post-dated checks or initiate ACH transfers from consumers' accounts in situations in which the consumer has not come into the store to repay in cash. Bureau research of ACH payments finds that online lenders experience failure rates upwards of 70 percent where they attempt to re-present an ACH withdrawal one or more times after an initial failure. Moreover, of the 30 percent of second attempts and 27 percent of third attempts that “succeed,” Bureau research indicates that approximately a third do so only by overdrafting the consumer's account.

Account Fees

Bureau analysis, consumer complaints, and public litigation documents show that the damage from these payment attempts can be substantial. Fifty percent of online borrowers in the Bureau's analysis of online payday and payday installment loans incurred at least one overdraft or non-sufficient funds return in connection with their loans, with average fees for these consumers at $185. Indeed, 10 percent of accounts experienced at least 10 payment withdrawal attempts that result in an overdraft or non-sufficient funds return over an 18 month period. A small but significant percentage of consumers suffer extreme incidences of overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on their accounts; for consumers with at least one online payday attempt that resulted in an overdraft or non-sufficient funds return, 10 percent were charged at least $432 in related account fees over the 18 month sample period.

Account Closure

Lender attempts to collect payments from an account may also contribute to account closure. The Bureau has observed that accounts of borrowers who use loans from online payday lenders are more likely to be closed than accounts generally (17 percent versus 3 percent, respectively). In particular, 36 percent of borrowers had their account closed involuntarily following an unsuccessful attempt by an online payday lender to collect a payment from the account, a rate four times greater than the closure rate for accounts with online loans that only had NSFs from non-payday transactions. For accounts with failed online payday loan transactions, account closures typically occur within 90 days of the last observed online payday loan transaction; in fact, 74 percent of account closures in these situations occur within 90 days of the first non-sufficient funds return triggered by an online payday or payday installment lender. This suggests that the online loan played a role in the closure of the account, or that payment attempts failed because the account was already headed towards closure, or both.

3. Limited Consumer Control

Consumers' ability to protect their accounts from these types of presentment problems is limited due to a combination of factors, including the nature of the lender practices themselves, lender revocation procedures (or lack thereof), costs imposed by consumers' depository institutions in connection with attempting to stop presentment attempts, and operational limits of individual payment methods. In some cases, revocation and stopping payment may be infeasible, and at a minimum they are generally both difficult and costly.

Consumers Have Difficulty Stopping Lenders' Ability to Access Their Accounts

The Bureau believes that lenders and account-holding institutions may make it difficult for consumers to revoke account access or stop withdrawals. One way consumers could attempt to stop multiple attempts to collect from their accounts would be to direct their lender to stop initiating payments. To do so, however, the consumer must be able to identify and contact the lender—which can be difficult or impossible for consumers who have borrowed from an online lender. Moreover, lenders who can be contacted often make it difficult to revoke access. For example, several lenders require consumers to provide another form of account access in order to effectively revoke authorization with respect to a specific payment method—some lenders require consumers to provide this back-up payment method as part of the origination agreement. Some lenders require consumers to mail a written revocation several days before the effective date of revocation. These same lenders automatically debit payments through another method, such as remotely created check, if a consumer revokes the ACH authorization. Others explicitly do not allow revocation, even though ACH private network rules require stop payment rights for both one-time and recurring ACH transactions. For example, one lender Web site states that ACH revocation is not allowed for its single-payment online loans. Other lenders may never have obtained proper authorization in the first place or take broad authorizations to debit any account associated with the consumer.

Consumer complaints sent to the Bureau also indicate that consumers struggle with anticipating and stopping payment attempts by payday lenders. Complaints where the consumer has identified the issues “can't stop lender from charging my bank account” or “lender charged my bank account on wrong day or for wrong amount” account for roughly 9 percent of the more than 12,200 payday loan complaints the Bureau has handled since November 2013. Although the Bureau does not specifically collect information from consumers on the frequency of these issues in the nearly 24,000 debt-collection complaints related to payday loans or in the more than 9,700 installment loan complaints the Bureau has also handled, review of those complaints and complaints submitted by consumers about deposit accounts suggest that many consumers who labeled their complaints as falling under those categories also experience difficulties anticipating and stopping payment attempts by payday and payday installment lenders.

The other option for consumers is to direct their bank to stop payment, but this too can be challenging. Depository institutions typically charge a fee of approximately $32 for processing a stop payment order, making this a costly option for consumers. In addition, some lenders charge returned-item fees if the stop payment order successfully blocks an attempt. The Bureau has received complaints from consumers charged overdraft and NSF fees after merchants with outstanding stop payment orders were able to withdraw funds despite the presence of the orders; in some instances, banks refuse to refund these charges.

The odds of successfully stopping a payment also vary by channel. To execute a stop payment order on a check, banks usually use the check number provided by the consumer. Since ACH payments do not have a number equivalent to a check number for the bank to identify them, ACH payments are particularly difficult to stop. To block the payment, banks may need to search the ACH transaction description for information that identifies the lender. Determining an effective search term is difficult given that there is no standardization of how originators of a payment—in this case, lenders—identify themselves in the ACH network. Lenders may use a parent company name, abbreviated name, or vary names based on factors like branch location. Some lenders use the name of their third party payment processor. Bank systems with limited searching capabilities may have difficulty finding these transactions and executing an ACH stop payment order.

Moreover, remotely created checks and remotely created payment orders are virtually impossible to stop because the consumer does not know the check number that the payee will generate, and the transaction information does not allow for payment identification in the same way that an ACH file does. RCCs and RCPOs have check numbers that are created by the lender or its payment processor, making it unlikely that consumers would have this information. Industry stakeholders, including members of the Bureau's Credit Union Advisory Council, indicate that it is virtually impossible to stop payments on RCCs and RCPOs because information to stop the payment—such as check number and payment amount—are generated by the lender or its payment processor. Moreover, consumers may not realize that a payment will be processed as a RCC, so they may not know to ask their bank to look for a payment processed as a check rather than as an ACH payment.

Some financial institutions impose additional procedural hurdles, for instance by requiring consumers to provide an exact payment amount for a stop payment order and allowing payments that vary by a small amount to go through. Others require consumers to provide the merchant identification code that the lender used in the ACH file. Because there is no standardization of merchant names or centralized database of merchant identification codes in the ACH system, however, the only way for consumers to know the exact merchant identification code is if they observed a previous debit by that lender. Even if a consumer located a lender's identification code on a previous debit, lenders may vary this code when they are debiting the same consumer account. During the Bureau's outreach, some depository institutions indicated that some payday lenders use multiple merchant ID codes and different names on their ACH transactions in an apparent attempt to reduce the risk of triggering scrutiny for their ACH presentments. Moreover, banks may require consumers to navigate fairly complex procedures in order to stop a payment, and these procedures may vary depending on whether the payment is presented through the ACH system or the check system. For example, one major depository institution allows consumers to use its online system to stop payment on a check, but requires notification over the phone to issue a stop payment on an ACH item.

The Bureau believes that there is also some risk that bank staff may misinform consumers about their rights. During outreach, the Bureau has learned that some bank ACH operations staff do not believe consumers have any right to stop payment or send back unauthorized transactions initiated by payday lenders. The Bureau has received consumer complaints to the same effect. Recent Federal court cases and information from legal aid organizations also provide evidence that bank staff may not correctly implement consumer payment rights in all cases.

4. Private Network Protections Have Limited Impact

Finally, while payday industry presentment practices are so severe that they have prompted recent actions by the private rulemaking body that governs the ACH network, the Bureau is concerned that these efforts will be insufficient to solve the problems discussed above. As discussed above in part II B., the private NACHA rules provide some protections in addition to those currently provided by law. Specifically, the NACHA rules limit re-presentment of any one single failed payment to two additional attempts and provide that any lender with a total return level of 15 percent or above may be subject to an inquiry process by NACHA. However, the narrow scope of these rules, limited private network monitoring and enforcement capabilities over them, and applicability to only one payment method mean that they are unlikely to entirely solve problematic practices in the payday and payday installment industries.

Reinitiation Cap

NACHA rules have historically provided a reinitiation cap, which limits re-presentment of a failed payment to two additional attempts. Compliance with this requirement is difficult to monitor and enforce. Although ACH files are supposed to distinguish between collection of a new payment and reinitiation of a prior one, some originators do not comply with this requirement to label reinitiated transactions. Since the ACH system does not record whether the payment is for a loan and accordingly cannot identify the terms of the loan, including whether it is a single-payment loan or an installment loan with a series of scheduled payments, there is limited ability to distinguish reinitiations (and potential NACHA rule violations) from the next installment payment. Unless a lender labels the attempt as a reinitiation, the ACH system cannot otherwise distinguish between, e.g., the second attempt to collect a payment for January 1 and the first attempt to collect the next payment due on February 1.

Even if the rule were not subject to ready evasion by originating entities, the cap also does not apply to future payments in an installment payment schedule. Accordingly, if a failed payment on a previously scheduled payment is followed by a payment attempt on the next scheduled payment, that second attempt is not considered a reinitiation and does not count toward the cap. For example, each month that a monthly loan payment does not go through, NACHA rules allow that payment to be presented a total of three times with three fees to the consumer. And then the following payment due during the next month can proceed despite any prior failures. Bureau analysis suggests that online lenders are re-submitting ACH payment attempts soon after a failure rather than simply waiting for the next scheduled payment date to attempt to collect.

Total Return Rate Level

According to a NACHA rule that went into effect in September 2015, originators with a total return rate of 15 percent or above are subject to an inquiry process by NACHA. This return rate includes returns for reasons such as non-sufficient funds, authorization revoked by consumer, administrative issues (such as an invalid account number), and stop payment orders. It does not include returns of re-presented checks, which are ACH re-presentments of payments that were first attempted through the check clearing network. Exceeding this threshold does not necessarily violate NACHA rules, but rather allows NACHA to demand additional information from the lender's originating depository financial institution (ODFI) for the purpose of determining whether the ODFI should lose access to the ACH system. During this process, the ODFI may be able to justify a high return rate depending on the lender's business model and other factors. NACHA set the threshold at 15 percent to allow flexibility for a variety of business models while identifying originators that were burdening the ACH system. However, the Bureau is concerned that lenders can adopt problematic payment practices and remain below this inquiry level; in the Bureau's analysis of ACH payments attempts by online payday and payday installment lenders, the Bureau observed an overall lender NSF return rate of 10.1 percent. At the time that NACHA first proposed this limit, the overall rate of returns for debit transactions in the ACH system was 1.5 percent.

Monitoring and Enforcement of the New Total Return Rate Level

NACHA has a limited ability to monitor return rates. First, NACHA has no ability to monitor returns based on a particular lender. All of the return information it receives is sorted by the originating depository financial institutions that are processing the transactions, rather than at the level of the individual lenders that is accessing the ACH network. Since lenders sometimes use multiple ODFI relationships to process their payments, the returns used in the NACHA threshold may not provide a full picture of a lender's payment activity. In addition, NACHA has no ability to monitor or calculate return rates on an ongoing basis. Although it receives return volume reports from the ACH operators (the Federal Reserve and The Clearinghouse), these reports do not contain the successful payment volume information that is necessary to calculate a return rate. Rather, NACHA relies on financial institutions to bring suspect behavior to its attention, which provides it with a basis to investigate further and request more detailed payment reports.

As discussed in part II B., the Bureau is aware that lenders often obtain access to multiple payment methods, such as check, ACH, and debit card. Since private payment networks do not combine return activity, there is no monitoring of a lender's overall returns across all payment types. Payments that begin as checks and then are re-presented as ACH payments, a practice that is not uncommon among storefront payday lenders, are excluded from the NACHA return rate threshold. The Bureau is also aware that lenders sometimes alternate between payment networks to avoid triggering scrutiny or violation of particular payment network rules. Processor marketing materials, Bureau staff conversations with industry, and documents made public through litigation indicate that the NACHA unauthorized return and total return rate thresholds have already prompted migration to remotely created checks and debit network transactions, both of which are not covered by the NACHA rules.

Particularly in light of payday lenders' past behavior, the Bureau believes that substantial risk to consumers remains. Although private network rules may improve lender practices in some respects, they have gaps and limited consequences—there is no systematic way to monitor lender payment practices in the current ACH system, or more broadly for practices across all payment channels. In addition, because NACHA rules are private, there is no guarantee for the public that they will exist in the same, or an improved, form in the future. For all of these reasons, the private ACH network rules are unlikely to fully solve the problematic practices in this market.

Section 1041.13 Identification of Unfair and Abusive Practice—Payments

As discussed above, it is a common practice for lenders in various types of credit markets to obtain consumers' authorizations to withdraw payment from their bank accounts with no further action required from the consumer after initially granting authorization. One common example of this practice is for creditors to obtain a consumer's authorization in advance to initiate a series of recurring electronic fund transfers from the consumer's bank account. The Bureau believes that this practice often can be beneficial for creditors and consumers alike by providing a relatively speedy, predictable, and low-cost means of repayment. Nonetheless, based on the evidence summarized in Market Concerns—Payments, the Bureau also believes that lenders in the markets for payday and payday installment loans often use such payment authorizations in ways that may cause substantial harms to consumers who are especially vulnerable, particularly when lenders continue making payment withdrawal attempts after one or more attempts have failed due to nonsufficient funds. As detailed below, the Bureau believes this evidence appears to support both a regulation that would alert consumers in advance of upcoming payment withdrawal attempts and a regulation that would provide specific consumer protections against unfair and abusive lender conduct when past payment withdrawal attempts have failed.

Based on the evidence described in Market Concerns—Payments and pursuant to its authority under section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.13 to identify it as both an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after the lender's second consecutive attempt has failed due to a lack of sufficient funds, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account. In this context, an “attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account” means a lender-initiated debit or withdrawal from the account for purposes of collecting any amount due or purported to be due in connection with a covered loan, regardless of the particular payment method used by the lender to initiate the debit or withdrawal. The proposed identification thus would apply to all common methods of withdrawing payment from consumers' accounts, including but not limited to the following methods: Electronic fund transfers (including preauthorized electronic fund transfers), without regard to the particular type of payment device or instrument used; signature checks; remotely created checks; remotely created payment orders; and an account-holding institution's withdrawal of funds held at the same institution. The Bureau's basis for this proposed identification is discussed in detail below.

a. Unfair Practice

Under § 1031(c)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau shall have no authority to declare an act or practice unfair unless it has a reasonable basis to conclude that it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers” and such substantial, not reasonably avoidable injury “is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.” The Bureau believes that it may be an unfair act and practice to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after the second consecutive attempt has failed due to a lack of sufficient funds, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account.

1. Causes or Is Likely To Cause Substantial Injury

As noted in part IV, the Bureau's interpretation of the various prongs of the unfairness test is informed by the FTC Act, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, and FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings and related case law. Under these authorities, as discussed in part IV, substantial injury may consist of a small amount of harm to a large number of individuals or a larger amount of harm to a smaller number of individuals.

In this case, the lender act or practice of attempting to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after the lender's second consecutive attempt has failed due to a lack of sufficient funds, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account, appears to cause or to be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. As discussed above, each additional attempt by the lender is likely to trigger substantial additional fees for the consumer but unlikely to result in successful collection for the lender. These additional attempts can cause serious injury to consumers who are already in substantial financial distress, including, in addition to the cumulative fees that the consumers owe both to the lender and their account-holding institution, increasing the risk that the consumers will experience account closure.

Specifically, the Bureau conducted analysis of online lenders' attempts to collect payments through the ACH system on covered loans with various payment structures, including traditional payday loans with a single balloon payment and high-cost installment loans, typically with payments timed to coincide with the consumer's payday. The Bureau's analysis indicates that the failure rate after two consecutive unsuccessful attempts is 73 percent, even when re-presentments appear to be timed to coincide with the consumer's next payday or the date of the next scheduled payment, and further worsens on subsequent attempts. Return rates for resubmissions of returned signature checks, RCCs, and RCPOs through the check system are not as readily observable. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that lenders' resubmissions of failed payment withdrawal attempts through the check clearing system would yield high failure rates as well. Similarly, when a lender that is also the consumer's account-holding institution has already initiated two consecutive failed internal transfers to withdraw payment on a loan despite having more information about the condition of the consumer's account than other lenders generally have, there is no reason to assume that the lender's next attempt to withdraw payment from the severely distressed account is any more likely to yield better results.

Consumers who are subject to the lender practice of attempting to withdraw payment from an account after two consecutive attempts have failed are likely to have incurred two NSF fees from their account-holding institution and, where permitted, two returned-payment fees from the lender by the time the third attempt is made. Accordingly, these consumers already may have incurred more than $100 in fees in connection with the first two failed attempts. As a result of lenders' attempts to withdraw payment from their accounts after the failure of a second consecutive attempt, most of these consumers will incur significant additional monetary and other harms. In the vast majority of cases, the third withdrawal attempt fails and thereby triggers additional NSF fees charged by the consumer's account-holding institution and additional returned-item fees charged by the lender. Indeed, the Bureau's evidence suggests that 73 percent of consumers who experience a third withdrawal attempt after two prior failures incur at least one additional NSF fee (bringing their total to three and total cost in NSF fees to over $100), 36 percent end up with at least two, and 10 percent end up with at least three additional fees (meaning in most cases they will have been charged approximately $175 in fees by their account-holding institution). The addition of a lender's returned-item fees can double these costs. These fees are imposed even for returned or declined payment withdrawal attempts for which the account-holding institution may not charge a fee, such as attempts made by debit cards and certain prepaid cards. Moreover, in the relatively small number of cases in which such a withdrawal attempt does succeed, Bureau research suggests that roughly one-third of the time, the consumer is likely to have been charged an overdraft fee of approximately $34.

In addition to incurring these types of fees, consumers who experience two or more consecutive failed lender payment attempts appear to be at greater risk of having their accounts closed by their account-holding institution. Specifically, the Bureau's analysis of ACH payment withdrawal attempts made by online payday and payday installment lenders indicates that 43 percent of accounts with two consecutive failed lender payment withdrawal attempts were closed by the depository institution, as compared with only 3 percent of accounts generally.

2. Injury Not Reasonably Avoidable

As previously noted in part IV, under the FTC Act and Federal precedents that inform the Bureau's interpretation and application of the unfairness test, an injury is not reasonably avoidable where “some form of seller behavior . . . unreasonably creates or takes advantage of an obstacle to the free exercise of consumer decision-making,” or, unless consumers have reason to anticipate the injury and the means to avoid it. The Bureau believes that in a significant proportion of cases, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further payment withdrawals from the account, consumers may be unable to reasonably avoid the injuries that result from the lender practice of attempting to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after two consecutive payment withdrawal attempts by the lender have failed.

Consumers could avoid the above-described substantial injury by depositing into their accounts enough money to cover the lender's third payment withdrawal attempt and every attempt that the lender may make after that, but for many consumers this is not a reasonable or even available way of avoiding the substantial injury discussed above. Even if a consumer had sufficient funds to do so and knew the amount and timing of the lender's next attempt to withdraw payment, any funds deposited into the consumer's account likely would be claimed first by the consumer's bank to repay the NSF fees charged for the prior two failed attempts. Thus, even a consumer who had some available cash would have difficulties in avoiding the injury resulting from the lender's third attempt to withdraw payment, as well as in avoiding the injury resulting from any attempts that the lender may make after the third one.

Moreover, as a practical matter, in the vast majority of cases in which two consecutive attempts to withdraw payment have failed, the consumer is in severe financial distress and thus does not have the money to cover the next payment withdrawal attempt. Although the Bureau's consumer testing indicates that consumers generally have a strong commitment to repaying their legal obligation, a consumer who has already experienced two consecutive failed payment attempts and incurred well over $100 in related fees may at that point consider either closing down the account or attempting to stop payment or revoke authorization as the only other options to avoid further fee-related injury. Given that consumers use their asset accounts to conduct most of their household financial transactions, the Bureau does not interpret voluntarily closing down the account as being a reasonable means for consumers to avoid injury.

Further, as discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, there are several reasons that the option of attempting to stop payment or revoke authorization is not a reasonable means of avoiding the injuries, either. First, consumers often face considerable challenges in issuing stop payment orders or revoking authorization as a means to prevent lenders from continuing to attempt to make payment withdrawals from their accounts. Complexities in payment processing systems and the internal procedures of consumers' account-holding institutions, combined with lender practices, often make it difficult for consumers to stop payment or revoke authorization effectively. With respect to preauthorized electronic fund transfers authorized by the consumer, for example, even if the consumer successfully stops payment on one transfer, the consumer may experience difficulties in blocking all future transfers by the lender. In addition, payment withdrawal attempts made via RCC or RCPO can be especially challenging for the consumer's account-holding institution to identify and to stop payment on.

Various lender practices exacerbate these challenges. As discussed above, lenders often obtain several different types of authorizations from consumers —e.g., authorizations to withdraw payment via both ACH transfers and RCCs—such that if the consumer successfully revokes one authorization, the lender has the ability to continue making payment collection attempts using the other authorization. The procedures of consumers' account-holding institutions for stopping payment often vary depending on the type of authorization involved. Thus, when a lender has obtained two different types of authorizations from the consumer, the considerable challenges associated with stopping payment or revocation in connection with just one type of authorization are effectively doubled. Many consumers may not understand that they must navigate two different sets of stop payment or revocation procedures to prevent the lender from making additional withdrawal attempts.

In addition, the costs to the consumer for issuing a stop payment order or revoking authorization are often as high as some of the fees that the consumer is trying to avoid. As discussed above, depository institutions charge consumers a fee of approximately $32, on average, for placing a stop payment order. The consumer incurs this fee regardless of whether the consumer is seeking to stop payment on a check (including an RCC or RCPO), a single electronic fund transfer, or all future electronic fund transfers authorized by the consumer. Moreover, issuing a stop payment order at a cost of $32 does not guarantee success. Some depository institutions require the consumer to provide the exact payment amount or the lender's merchant ID code, and thus fail to block payments when the payment amount varies or the lender varies the merchant code. In addition, some depository institutions require consumers to renew stop payment orders after a certain period of time. In such cases, consumers may incur more than one stop payment fee in order to continue blocking future payment withdrawal attempts by the lender.

As a result of these stop payment fees, the cost to the consumer of stopping payment with the consumer's account-holding institution is comparable to the NSF fee or overdraft fee that the consumer would be charged by the institution if the payment withdrawal attempt that the consumer is seeking to stop were made. Thus, even if the consumer successfully stops payment, the consumer would not avoid this particular fee-related injury but rather would be exchanging the cost of one fee for another. In addition, some consumers may be charged a stop payment fee by their account-holding institution even when, despite the stop payment order, the lender's payment withdrawal attempt goes through. In such cases, the consumer may be charged both a fee for the stop payment order and an NSF or overdraft fee triggered by the lender's payment withdrawal attempt.

In addition to the challenges consumers face when trying to stop payment or revoke authorization with their account-holding institutions, consumers often face lender-created barriers that prevent them from pursuing this option as an effective means of avoiding injury. Lenders may discourage consumers from pursuing this course of action by including language in loan agreements purportedly prohibiting the consumer from stopping payment or revoking authorization. In some cases, lenders may charge consumers a substantial fee in the event that they successfully stop payment with their account-holding institution. Lenders' procedures for revoking authorizations directly with the lender create additional barriers. As discussed above, lenders often require consumers to provide written revocation by mail several days in advance of the next scheduled payment withdrawal attempt. If a consumer who wishes to revoke authorization took out the loan online, she may have difficulty even identifying the lender that holds the authorization, especially if she was paired with the lender through a third-party lead generator. These lender-created barriers make it difficult for consumers to stop payment or revoke authorization in general, but can create particular difficulties for consumers who wish to revoke authorizations for repayment by recurring electronic fund transfers under Regulation E, given that the consumer's account-holding institution is permitted under Regulation E to require the consumer to confirm the consumer has informed the lender of the revocation (for example, by requiring a copy of the consumer's revocation as written confirmation to be provided within 14 days of an oral notification). If the institution does not receive the required written confirmation within the 14-day period, it may honor subsequent debits to the account.

3. Injury Not Outweighed by Countervailing Benefits to Consumers or Competition

As noted in part IV, the Bureau's interpretation of the various prongs of the unfairness test is informed by the FTC Act, the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, and FTC and other Federal agency rulemakings and related case law. Under those authorities, it generally is appropriate for purposes of the countervailing benefits prong of the unfairness standard to consider both the costs of imposing a remedy and any benefits that consumers enjoy as a result of the practice, but the determination does not require a precise quantitative analysis of benefits and costs.

The Bureau proposes to find that the lender act or practice of making additional payment withdrawal attempts from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after two consecutive attempts have failed, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account, generates benefits to consumers or competition that outweigh the injuries caused by the practice. As discussed above, the substantial majority of additional attempts are likely to fail. Indeed, the Bureau's analysis of ACH payment withdrawal attempts made by online payday and payday installment lenders finds that the failure rate on the third attempt is 73 percent, and that failure rates increase to 83 percent on the fourth attempt and to 85 percent on the fifth attempt. Furthermore, of those attempts that succeed, 33 percent or more succeed only by overdrawing the consumer's account.

When a third or subsequent attempt to withdraw payment does succeed, the consumer making the payment may experience some benefit—but only if the payment does not overdraw the consumer's account and the amount collected is sufficient to bring the consumer's loan current or pay off all of what is owed, thereby permitting the consumer to avoid further payment withdrawal attempts or collections activity. It is unclear how often this combination of events occurs for this set of consumers. In any event, the Bureau believes that to the extent that there are some consumers who, after two consecutive failed attempts, are able to muster sufficient funds to make the required payment or payments, these consumers would be able to arrange to make their payment or payments even if lenders were prohibited from making additional payment attempts absent a new and specific authorization from the consumer, such as by paying in cash, mailing in a money order, or making one or more ACH “push” payments from their accounts.

Turning to the potential benefits of the practice to competition, the Bureau recognizes that to the extent that payment withdrawal attempts succeed when made after two consecutive failed attempts, lenders may collect larger payments or may collect payments at a lower cost than they would if they were required to seek payment directly from the consumer rather than from the consumer's account. Given their high failure rates, however, these additional attempts generate relatively small amounts of revenue for lenders. For example, the Bureau's analysis of ACH payment withdrawal attempts made by online payday and payday installment lenders indicates that the expected value of a third successive payment attempt is only $46, and that the expected value drops to $32 for the fourth attempt and to $21 for the fifth attempt. Furthermore, as noted above, the Bureau believes that lenders could obtain much of this revenue without making multiple attempts to withdraw payment from demonstrably distressed accounts. For instance, lenders could seek payments in cash or “push” payments from the consumer, or, in the alternative, seek a new and specific authorization from the consumer to make further payment withdrawal attempts. Indeed, coordinating with the consumer to seek a new authorization may be more likely to result in successful payment withdrawal attempts than does the practice of repeatedly attempting to withdraw or transfer funds from an account in distress. Finally, in view of the pricing structures observed in the markets for loans that would be covered under the proposed rule, the Bureau does not believe that any incremental revenue benefit to lenders from subsequent attempts, including revenue from fees charged for failed attempts, translates into more competitive pricing or, put differently, that prohibiting such attempts would adversely affect pricing. In sum, the substantial injuries that consumers incur as a result of the practice, as discussed above, are not outweighed by the minimal benefits that this practice generates for consumers or competition.

b. Abusive Practice

Under § 1031(d)(2)(A) and (B) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau shall have no authority to declare an act or practice abusive unless it takes unreasonable advantage of “a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service” or of “the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service.” Based on the evidence discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, the Bureau proposes to find that, with respect to covered loans, it is an abusive act or practice for a lender to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after two consecutive failed attempts, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account.

1. Consumers Lack Understanding of Material Risks and Costs

The Bureau believes that consumers understand generally when granting an authorization to withdraw payment from their account that they may incur an NSF fee from their account-holding institution and a lender-charged returned-item fee if a payment is returned, on either a single-payment or installment loan, or a fee from their account-holding institution if the institution is also the lender. However, the Bureau does not believe that such a generalized understanding suffices to establish that consumers understand the material costs and risks of a product or service. Rather, the Bureau believes that it is reasonable to interpret “lack of understanding” in this context to mean more than mere awareness that it is within the realm of possibility that a particular negative consequence may follow or cost may be incurred as a result of using the product. For example, consumers may not understand that a risk is very likely to happen or that—though relatively rare—the impact of a particular risk would be severe.

In this instance, precisely because the practice of taking advanced authorizations to withdraw payment is so widespread across markets for other credit products and non-credit products and services, the Bureau believes that consumers lack understanding of how the risk they are exposing themselves to by granting authorizations to lenders making proposed covered loans. Rather, consumers are likely to expect payment withdrawals made pursuant to their authorizations to operate in a convenient and predictable manner, similar to the way such authorizations operate when granted to other types of lenders and in a wide variety of other markets. Consumers' general understanding that granting authorization can sometimes result in their incurring such fees does not prepare them for the substantial likelihood that, in the event their account becomes severely distressed, the lender will continue making payment withdrawal attempts even after the lender should be on notice (from two consecutive failed attempts) of the account's condition, and that they thereby will be exposed to substantially increased overall loan costs in the form of cumulative NSF or overdraft fees from their account-holding institution and returned-item fees from their lender, as well as to the increased risk of account closure. Moreover, this general understanding does not prepare consumers for the array of significant challenges they will encounter if, upon discovering that their lender is still attempting to withdraw payment after their account has become severely distressed, they take steps to try to stop the lender from using their authorizations to make any additional attempts.

2. Consumers Are Unable To Protect Their Interests

The Bureau proposes to find that it takes unreasonable advantage of consumers' inability to protect their interests when a lender attempts to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after the lender's second consecutive attempt has failed due to a lack of sufficient funds, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account. Once consumers discover that lenders are using their authorizations in this manner, it is too late for them to take effective action. While consumers could try to protect themselves from the harms of additional payment withdrawal attempts by closing down their accounts entirely, the Bureau does not interpret taking this action as being a practicable means for consumers to protect their interests, given that consumers use their accounts to conduct most of their household financial transactions. Accordingly, as discussed above, often the only option for most consumers to protect themselves (and their accounts) from the harms of lender attempts to withdraw payment after two consecutive attempts have failed is to stop payment or revoke authorization. However, consumers often face considerable challenges and barriers when trying to stop payment or revoke authorization, both with their lenders and their account-holding institutions. These challenges and barriers make this option an impracticable means for consumers to protect themselves from the harms of further payment withdrawal attempts.

As discussed above, lenders may discourage consumers from stopping payment or revoking authorization by including language in loan agreements purporting to prohibit revocation. Some lenders may charge consumers a substantial fee for stopping payment with their account-holding institutions. Lenders' procedures for revoking authorizations directly with the lender create additional barriers to stopping payment or revoking authorization effectively. For example, as discussed above, lenders often require consumers to provide written revocation by mail several days in advance of the next scheduled payment withdrawal attempt. Some consumers may even have difficulty identifying the lender that holds the authorization, particularly if the consumers took out the loan online and were paired with the lender through a third-party lead generator. These and similar lender-created barriers—while challenging for consumers in all cases—can make it particularly difficult for consumers to revoke authorizations for repayment by recurring transfers under Regulation E, given that a consumer's account-holding institution is permitted under Regulation E to confirm the consumer has informed the lender of the revocation (for example, by requiring a copy of the consumer's revocation as written confirmation to be provided within 14 days of an oral notification). If the institution does not receive the required written confirmation within the 14-day period, it may honor subsequent debits to the account.

Consumers encounter additional challenges when trying to stop payment with their account-holding institutions. For example, due to complexities in payment processing systems and the internal procedures of consumers' account-holding institutions, consumers may be unable to stop payment on the next payment withdrawal attempt in a timely and effective manner. Even if the consumer successfully stops payment with her account-holding institution on the lender's next payment attempt, the consumer may experience difficulties blocking all future attempts by the lender, particularly when the consumer has authorized the lender to make withdrawals from her account via recurring electronic fund transfers. Some depository institutions require the consumer to provide the exact payment amount or the lender's merchant ID code, and thus fail to block payments when the payment amount varies or the lender varies the merchant code. Consumers are likely to experience even greater challenges in stopping payment on lender attempts made via RCC or RCPO, given account-holding institutions' difficulties in identifying such payment attempts. Further, if the lender has obtained multiple types of authorizations from the consumer—such as authorizations to withdraw payment via both ACH transfers and RCCs—the consumer likely will have to navigate different sets of complicated stop-payment procedures for each type of authorization held by the lender, thereby making it even more challenging to stop payment effectively.

Further, the fees charged by consumers' account-holding institutions for stopping payment are often comparable to the NSF fees or overdraft fees from which the consumers are trying to protect themselves. Depending on their account-institution's policies, some consumers may be charged a second fee to renew a stop payment order after a period of time. As a result of these costs, even if the consumer successfully stops payment on the next payment withdrawal attempt, the consumer will not have effectively protected herself from the fee-related injury that otherwise would have resulted from the attempt, but rather will have exchanged the cost of one fee for another. Additionally, in some cases, consumers may be charged a stop payment fee by their account-holding institution even when the stop payment order fails to stop the lender's payment withdrawal attempt from going through. As a result, such consumers may incur both a fee for the stop payment order and an NSF or overdraft fee for the lender's withdrawal attempt.

3. Practice Takes Unreasonable Advantage of Consumer Vulnerabilities

Under section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act, an act or practice is abusive if it takes “unreasonable advantage” of consumers' lack of understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions of consumer financial product or service or inability to protect their interests in selecting or using such a product or service. The Bureau believes that, with respect to covered loans, the lender act or practice of attempting to withdraw payment from a consumer's account after two consecutive attempts have failed, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals, may take unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding and inability to protect their interests, as discussed above, and is therefore abusive.

The Bureau recognizes that in any transaction involving a consumer financial product or service, there is likely to be some information asymmetry between the consumer and the financial institution. Often, the financial institution will have superior bargaining power as well. Section 1031(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act does not prohibit financial institutions from taking advantage of their superior knowledge or bargaining power to maximize their profit. Indeed, in a market economy, market participants with such advantages generally pursue their self-interests. However, section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act makes plain that there comes a point at which a financial institution's conduct in leveraging consumers' lack of understanding or inability to protect their interest becomes unreasonable advantage-taking and thus is potentially abusive.

The Dodd-Frank Act delegates to the Bureau the responsibility for determining when that line has been crossed. The Bureau believes that such determinations are best made with respect to any particular act or practice by taking into account all of the facts and circumstances that are relevant to assessing whether such an act or practice takes unreasonable advantage of consumers' lack of understanding or of consumers' inability to protect their interests. The Bureau recognizes that taking a consumer's authorization to withdraw funds from the consumer's account without further action by the consumer is a common practice that frequently serves the interest of both lenders and consumers, and does not believe that this practice, standing alone, takes unreasonable advantage of consumers. However, at least with respect to covered loans, the Bureau proposes to conclude, based on the evidence discussed in this section and in Markets Concerns—Payments, that when lenders use such authorizations to make a payment withdrawal attempt after two consecutive attempts have failed, lenders take unreasonable advantage of consumers' lacking of understanding and inability to protect their interests, absent the consumer's new and specific authorization.

As discussed above, with respect to covered loans, the lender practice of continuing to make payment withdrawal attempts after a second consecutive failure generates relatively small amounts of revenues for lenders, particularly as compared with the significant harms that consumers incur as a result of the practice. Moreover, the cost to the lender of re-presenting a failed payment withdrawal attempt is nominal, thus permitting lenders to re-present, often repeatedly, at little cost to themselves and with little to no regard for the harms that consumers incur as a result of the re-presentments.

Specifically, the Bureau's analysis of ACH payment withdrawal attempts made by online payday and payday installment lenders indicates that the expected value of a third successive payment withdrawal attempt is only $46 (as compared with $152 for a first attempt), and that the expected value drops to $32 for the fourth attempt and to $21 for the fifth attempt. And yet, despite these increasingly poor odds of succeeding, lenders continue to re-present, further suggesting that the consumers' payment authorizations have ceased at this point to serve their primary convenience purpose but instead have become a means for the lenders to extract small amounts of revenues from consumers any way they can. In addition, as discussed above, lenders often charge consumers a returned-item fee for each failed attempt. This provides lenders with an additional incentive to continue attempting to withdraw payment from consumers' accounts even after two consecutive attempts have failed. Although lenders are not able to collect such fees immediately, the fees are added to the consumer's overall debt and thus can be collected through the debt collection process. The Bureau believes that lenders could obtain much of this revenue without engaging in the practice of trying to withdraw payment from consumers' accounts after the accounts have exhibited clear signs of being in severe distress. For example, lenders could seek further payments in cash or ACH “push” payments from the consumer, or, in the alternative, seek a new and specific authorization from consumers to make further payment withdrawal attempts. Indeed, the Bureau believes that coordinating with the consumer to seek a new authorization may be more likely to result in successful payment withdrawal attempts than does the practice of repeatedly attempting to withdraw payments from an account in distress.

The Bureau seeks comment on the evidence and proposed findings and conclusions in proposed § 1041.13 and Market Concerns—Payments above.

Section 1041.14 Prohibited Payment Transfer Attempts

As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1041.13, the Bureau is proposing to identify it as an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after the lender's second consecutive attempt to withdraw payment from the account has failed due to a lack of sufficient funds, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account. Thus, after a lender's second consecutive attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account has failed, the lender could avoid engaging in the unfair or abusive practice either by not making any further payment withdrawals or by obtaining from the consumer a new and specific authorization and making further payment withdrawals pursuant to that authorization.

Section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Bureau may prescribe rules “identifying as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices” and may include in such rules requirements for the purpose of preventing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The Bureau is proposing to identify and prevent the unfair and abusive practice described above by including in proposed § 1041.14 requirements for determining when making a further payment withdrawal attempt constitutes an unfair or abusive act and for obtaining a consumer's new and specific authorization to make further payment withdrawals from the consumer's account. In addition to its authority under section 1031(b), the Bureau is proposing two provisions—§ 1041.14(c)(3)(ii) and (iii)(C)—pursuant to its authority under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1032(a) authorizes the Bureau to prescribe rules to ensure that the features of consumer financial products and services, “both initially and over the term of the product or service,” are disclosed “fully, accurately, and effectively . . . in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service, in light of the facts and circumstances.” Both of the proposed provisions relate to the requirements for obtaining the consumer's new and specific authorization after the prohibition on making further payment withdrawals has been triggered.

In addition to the proposed provisions in § 1041.14, the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.15 a complementary set of requirements pursuant to its authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act to require lenders to provide notice to a consumer prior to initiating a payment withdrawal from the consumer's account. The Bureau believes that these disclosures, by informing consumers in advance of the timing, amount, and channel of upcoming withdrawal attempts, will help consumers to detect errors or problems with upcoming payments and to contact their lenders or account-holding institutions to resolve them in a timely manner, as well as to take steps to ensure that their accounts contain enough money to cover the payments, when taking such steps is feasible for consumers. Proposed § 1041.15 also provides for a notice that lenders would be required to provide to consumers, alerting them to the fact that two consecutive payment withdrawal attempts to their accounts have failed—thus triggering operation of the requirements in proposed § 1041.14(b)—so that consumers can better understand their repayment options and obligations in light of their accounts' severely distressed conditions. The two payments-related sections in the proposed rule thus complement and reinforce each other.

Specifically, proposed § 1041.14 would include four main sets of provisions. First, proposed § 1041.14(a) would establish definitions used throughout §§ 1041.14 and 1041.15. Second, proposed § 1041.14(b) would establish requirements for determining when the prohibition on making further attempts to withdraw payment from a consumer's account applies. Third, proposed § 1041.14(c) would set forth the requirements for the first of two exceptions to the prohibition in § 1041.14(b). Under this exception, a lender would be permitted to make further payment withdrawals from a consumer's account if the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization for the terms of the withdrawals, as specified in the proposed rule. Last, proposed § 1041.14(d) would set forth the requirements for a second exception to the prohibition. Under this exception, a lender would be permitted to make further payment withdrawals on a one-time basis within one business day after the consumer authorizes the withdrawal, subject to certain requirements and conditions. Each of these provisions of proposed § 1041.14 is discussed in detail, below.

14(a) Definitions

Proposed § 1041.14(a) would establish defined terms used throughout §§ 1041.14 and 1041.15. The central defined term in both of these proposed sections is “payment transfer.” This term would apply broadly to any lender-initiated attempt to collect payment from a consumer's account, regardless of the type of authorization or instrument used. As discussed more fully below, the Bureau believes a single, broadly-applicable term would help to ensure uniform application of the payments-related consumer protections and reduce complexity in the proposed rule. All of the proposed definitions in § 1041.14(a) are discussed in detail, below.

14(a)(1) Payment Transfer

Proposed § 1041.14(a)(1) would define a payment transfer as any lender-initiated debit or withdrawal of funds from a consumer's account for the purpose of collecting any amount due or purported to be due in connection with a covered loan. To illustrate the definition's application to existing payment methods, proposed § 1041.14(a)(1) further provides a non-exhaustive list of specific means of debiting or withdrawing funds from a consumer's account that would constitute payment transfers if the general definition's conditions are met. Specifically, proposed § 1041.14(a)(1)(i) through (v) provide that the term includes a debit or withdrawal initiated through: (1) An electronic fund transfer, including a preauthorized electronic fund transfer as defined in Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.2(k); (2) a signature check, regardless of whether the transaction is processed through the check network or another network, such as the ACH network; (3) a remotely created check as defined in Regulation CC, 12 CFR 229.2(fff); and (4) a remotely created payment order as defined in 16 CFR 310.2(cc); and (5) an account-holding institution's transfer of funds from a consumer's account that is held at the same institution.

The Bureau believes that a broad payment transfer definition that focuses on the collection purpose of the debit or withdrawal, rather than on the particular method by which the debit or withdrawal is made, would help to ensure uniform application of the proposed rule's payments-related consumer protections. As discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, in markets for loans that would be covered under the proposed rule, lenders use a variety of methods to collect payment from consumers' accounts. Some lenders take more than one form of payment authorization from consumers in connection with a single loan. Even lenders that take only a signature check often process the checks through the ACH system, particularly for purposes of re-submitting a returned check that was originally processed through the check system.

In addition, the Bureau believes that, for a proposed rule designed to apply across multiple payment methods and channels, a single defined term is necessary to avoid the considerable complexity that would result if the proposed rule merely adopted existing terminology for every specific method and channel. Defining payment transfer in this way would enable the proposed rule to provide for the required payment notices in proposed § 1041.15 to be given to consumers regardless of the payment method or channel used to make a debit or withdrawal. Similarly, this proposed definition ensures that the prohibition in proposed § 1041.14(b) on additional failed payment transfers would apply regardless of the payment method or channel used to make the triggering failed attempts and regardless of whether a lender moves back and forth between different payment methods or channels when attempting to withdraw payment from a consumer's account.

Proposed comment 14(a)(1)-1 explains that a transfer of funds meeting the general definition is a payment transfer regardless of whether it is initiated by an instrument, order, or means not specified in § 1041.14(a)(1). Proposed comment 14(a)(1)-2 explains that a lender-initiated debit or withdrawal includes a debit or withdrawal initiated by the lender's agent, such as a payment processor. Proposed comment 14(a)(1)-3 provides examples to illustrate how the proposed definition applies to a debit or withdrawal for any amount due in connection with a covered loan. Specifically, proposed comments 14(a)(1)-3.i through -3.iv explain, respectively, that the definition applies to a payment transfer for the amount of a scheduled payment, a transfer for an amount smaller than the amount of a scheduled payment, a transfer for the amount of the entire unpaid loan balance collected pursuant to an acceleration clause in a loan agreement for a covered loan, and a transfer for the amount of a late fee or other penalty assessed pursuant to a loan agreement for a covered loan.

Proposed comment 14(a)(1)-4 clarifies that the proposed definition applies even when the transfer is for an amount that the consumer disputes or does not legally owe. Proposed comment 14(a)(1)-5 provides three examples of covered loan payments that, while made with funds transferred or withdrawn from a consumer's account, would not be covered by the proposed definition of a payment transfer. The first two examples, provided in proposed comments 14(a)(1)-5.i and -5.ii, are of transfers or withdrawals that are initiated by the consumer—specifically, when a consumer makes a payment in cash withdrawn by the consumer from the consumer's account and when a consumer makes a payment via an online or mobile bill payment service offered by the consumer's account-holding institution. The third example, provided in proposed comment 14(a)(1)-5.iii, clarifies that the definition does not apply when a lender seeks repayment of a covered loan pursuant to a valid court order authorizing the lender to garnish a consumer's account.

Additionally, proposed comments relating to § 1041.14(a)(1)(i), (ii), and (v) clarify how the proposed payment transfer definition applies to particular payment methods. Specifically, proposed comment 14(a)(1)(i)-1 explains that the general definition of a payment transfer would apply to any electronic fund transfer, including but not limited to an electronic fund transfer initiated by a debit card or a prepaid card. Proposed comment 14(a)(1)(ii)-1 provides an illustration of how the definition of payment transfer would apply to a debit or withdrawal made by signature check, regardless of the payment network through which the transaction is processed. Last, proposed comment 14(a)(1)(v)-1 clarifies, by providing an example, that an account-holding institution initiates a payment transfer when it initiates an internal transfer of funds from a consumer's account to collect payment on a depository advance product.

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed definition of a payment transfer. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the scope of the definition is appropriate and whether the use of a single defined term in the manner proposed would achieve the objectives discussed above. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the rule should provide additional examples of methods for debiting or withdrawing funds from consumers' accounts to which the definition applies and, if so, what types of examples. Further, the Bureau recognizes that the proposed definition could apply to instances when a lender that is the consumer's account-holding institution exercises a right of set-off in connection with a covered loan—if, for example, in exercising that right, the lender initiates an internal transfer from the consumer's account. The Bureau seeks comment on the extent to which the proposed definition would apply to exercising a right of set-off, on whether and why the definition should apply to such instances, and on what additional provisions may be needed to clarify the definition's application in this context.

14(a)(2) Single Immediate Payment Transfer at the Consumer's Request

Proposed § 1041.14(a)(2) would set forth the definition of a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request as, generally, a payment transfer that is initiated by a one-time electronic fund transfer or by processing a consumer's signature check within one business day after the lender obtains the consumer's authorization or check. Such payment transfers would be exempted from certain requirements in the proposed rule, as discussed further below.

The principal characteristic of a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request is that it is initiated at or near the time that the consumer chooses to authorize it. During the SBREFA process and in outreach with industry in developing the proposal, the Bureau received feedback that consumers often authorize or request lenders to make an immediate debit or withdrawal from their accounts for various reasons, including, for example, to avoid a late payment fee. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.15, stakeholders expressed concerns primarily about the potential impracticability and undue burden of providing a notice of an upcoming withdrawal under proposed § 1041.15(b) in advance of executing the consumer's payment instructions in these circumstances. More generally, the SERs and industry stakeholders also suggested that a transfer made at the consumer's immediate request presents fewer consumer protection concerns than a debit or withdrawal authorized by the consumer days or more in advance, given that the consumer presumably makes the request based on firsthand knowledge of his or her account balance.

The Bureau believes that applying fewer requirements to payment transfers initiated immediately after consumers request the debit or withdrawal is both warranted and consistent with the important policy goal of providing consumers greater control over their payments on covered loans. Accordingly, the proposed definition would be used to apply certain exceptions to the proposed rule's payments-related requirements in two instances. First, a lender would not be required to provide the payment notice in proposed § 1041.15(b) when initiating a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request. Second, a lender would be permitted under proposed § 1041.14(d) to initiate a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request after the prohibition in proposed § 1041.14(b) on initiating further payment transfers has been triggered, subject to certain requirements and conditions.

The first prong of proposed § 1041.14(a)(2) would provide that a payment transfer is a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request when it meets either one of two sets of conditions. The first of these prongs would apply specifically to payment transfers initiated via a one-time electronic fund transfer. Proposed § 1041.14(a)(2)(i) would generally define the term as a one-time electronic fund transfer initiated within one business day after the consumer authorizes the transfer. The Bureau believes that a one-business-day timeframe would allow lenders sufficient time to initiate the transfer, while providing assurance that the account would be debited in accordance with the consumer's timing expectations. Proposed comment 14(a)(2)(i)-1 explains that for purposes of the definition's timing condition, a one-time electronic fund transfer is initiated at the time that the transfer is sent out of the lender's control and that the electronic fund transfer thus is initiated at the time that the lender or its agent sends the payment to be processed by a third party, such as the lender's bank. The proposed comment further provides an illustrative example of this concept.

The second prong of the definition, in proposed § 1041.14(a)(2)(ii), would apply specifically to payment transfers initiated by processing a consumer's signature check. Under this prong, the term would apply when a consumer's signature check is processed through either the check system or the ACH system within one business day after the consumer provides the check to the lender. Proposed comments 14(a)(2)(ii)-1 and -2 explain how the definition's timing condition in proposed § 1041.14(a)(2)(ii) applies to the processing of a signature check. Similar to the concept explained in proposed comment 14(a)(2)(i)-1, proposed comment 14(a)(2)(ii)-1 explains that a signature check is sent out of the lender's control and that the check thus is processed at the time that the lender or its agent sends the check to be processed by a third party, such as the lender's bank. The proposed comment further cross-references comment 14(a)(2)(i)-1 for an illustrative example of how this concept applies in the context of initiating a one-time electronic fund transfer. Proposed comment 14(a)(2)(ii)-2 clarifies that, for purposes of the timing condition in § 1041.14(a)(2)(ii), in cases when a consumer mails a check to the lender, the check is deemed to be provided to the lender on the date it is received.

As with the similar timing condition for a one-time electronic fund transfer in proposed § 1041.14(a)(2)(i), the Bureau believes that these timing conditions would help to ensure that the consumer has the ability to control the terms of the transfer and that the conditions would be practicable for lenders to meet. In addition, the Bureau notes that the timing conditions would effectively exclude from the definition the use of a consumer's post-dated check, and instead would limit the definition to situations in which a consumer provides a check with the intent that it be used to execute an immediate payment. The Bureau believes that this condition is necessary to ensure that the exceptions concerning single immediate payment transfers at the consumer's request apply only when it is clear that the consumer is affirmatively initiating the payment by dictating its timing and amount. These criteria are not met when the lender already holds the consumer's post-dated check. The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed definition of single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether it would be practicable for lenders to initiate an electronic fund transfer or deposit a check within the proposed 24-hour timeframe. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the definition should include single immediate payment transfers initiated through other means of withdrawing payment and, if so, which means and why.

14(b) Prohibition on Initiating Payment Transfers From a Consumer's Account After Two Consecutive Failed Payment Transfers

Proposed § 1041.14(b) would prohibit a lender from attempting to withdraw payment from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan when two consecutive attempts have been returned due to a lack of sufficient funds. The Bureau is proposing § 1041.14(b) pursuant to section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that “the Bureau may prescribe rules applicable to a covered person or service provider identifying as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.” The Bureau's rules under section 1031(b) may include requirements for the purpose of preventing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.13, it appears that, in connection with a covered loan, it is an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account after the lender's second consecutive attempt to withdraw payment from the account fails due to a lack of sufficient funds, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further payment withdrawals. This proposed finding would apply to any lender-initiated debit or withdrawal from a consumer's account for purposes of collecting any amount due or purported to be due in connection with a covered loan, regardless of the particular payment method or channel used.

In accordance with this proposed finding, a lender would be generally prohibited under proposed § 1041.14(b) from making further attempts to withdraw payment from a consumer's account upon the second consecutive return for nonsufficient funds, unless and until the lender obtains the consumer's authorization for additional transfers under proposed § 1041.14(c) or obtains the consumer's authorization for a single immediate payment transfer in accordance with proposed § 1041.14(d). The prohibition under proposed § 1041.14(b) would apply to, and be triggered by, any lender-initiated attempts to withdraw payment from a consumer's checking, savings, or prepaid account. In addition, the prohibition under proposed § 1041.14(b) would apply to, and be triggered by, all lender-initiated withdrawal attempts regardless of the payment method used, including but not limited to signature check, remotely created check, remotely created payment orders, authorizations for one-time or recurring electronic fund transfers, and an account-holding institution's withdrawal of funds from a consumer's account that is held at the same institution.

In developing the proposed approach to restricting lenders from making repeated failed attempts to debit or withdraw funds from consumers' accounts, the Bureau has considered a number of potential interventions. As detailed in Market Concerns—Payments, for example, the Bureau is aware that some lenders split the amount of a payment into two or more separate transfers and then present all of the transfers through the ACH system on the same day. Some lenders make multiple attempts to debit accounts over the course of several days or a few weeks. Also, lenders that collect payment by signature check often alternate submissions between the check system and ACH system to maximize the number of times they can attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account using a single check. These and similarly aggressive payment practices potentially cause harms to consumers and may each constitute an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. The Bureau believes, however, that tailoring requirements in this rulemaking for each discrete payment practice would add considerable complexity to the proposed rule and yet still could leave consumers vulnerable to harms from aggressive practices that may emerge in markets for covered loans in the future.

Accordingly, while the Bureau will continue to use its supervisory and enforcement authorities to address such aggressive practices as appropriate, the Bureau is proposing in this rulemaking to address a specific practice that the Bureau preliminarily believes to be unfair and abusive, and is proposing requirements to prevent that practice which will provide significant consumer protections from a range of harmful payment practices in a considerably less complex fashion. For example, as applied to the practice of splitting payments into multiple same-day presentments, the proposed approach would effectively curtail a lender's access to the consumer's account when any two such presentments fail. For another example, as applied to checks, a lender could resubmit a returned check no more than once, regardless of the channel used, before triggering the prohibition.

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed approach to restricting lenders from making repeated failed attempts to withdraw payment from consumers' accounts. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the proposed approach is an appropriate and effective way to prevent consumer harms from the aggressive payment practices described above. Further, the Bureau seeks comment on whether there are potentially harmful payment practices in markets for covered loans that would not be addressed by the proposed approach and, if so, what additional provisions may be needed to address those practices.

The Bureau has framed the proposed prohibition broadly so that it would apply to depository lenders that hold the consumer's asset account, such as providers of deposit advance products or other types of proposed covered loans that may be offered by such depository lenders. Because depository lenders that hold consumers' accounts have greater information about the status of those accounts than do third-party lenders, the Bureau believes that depository lenders should have little difficulty in avoiding failed attempts that would trigger the prohibition. Nevertheless, if such lenders elect to initiate payment transfers from consumers' accounts when—as the lenders know or should know—the accounts lack sufficient funds to cover the amount of the payment transfers, they could assess the consumers substantial fees permitted under the asset account agreement (including NSF and overdraft fees) as well as any late fees or similar penalty fees permitted under the loan agreement for the covered loan. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that applying the prohibition in this manner may help to protect consumers from harmful practices in which such depository lenders may sometimes engage. As discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, for example, the Bureau found that a depository institution that offered loan products to consumers with accounts at the institution charged some of those consumers NSF fees and overdraft fees for payment withdrawals initiated within the institution's internal systems.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether depository institutions' greater visibility into consumers' accounts warrants modifying the proposed approach for applying the prohibition to such lenders. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether and how frequently such lenders make repeated payment withdrawal attempts through their internal systems in connection with proposed covered loans in ways that can be harmful to consumers and, if so, whether the proposed approach is appropriate to address those practices, or whether (and what types of) modified approaches are appropriate. For example, the Bureau seeks comment on whether triggering the proposed prohibition upon the failure of a second consecutive failed payment transfer attempt should be modified for such lenders in light of the fact that depository institutions are better situated to predict the outcomes of their attempts than are lenders that do not hold consumers' accounts.

Proposed comment 14(b)-1 explains the general scope of the prohibition. Specifically, it explains that a lender is restricted under the prohibition from initiating any further payment transfers from the consumer's account in connection with the covered loan, unless the requirements and conditions in either § 1041.14(c) or (d) are satisfied. (Proposed § 1041.14(c) and (d), which would permit a lender to initiate payment transfers authorized by the consumer after the prohibition has applied if certain requirements and conditions are satisfied, are discussed in detail below.) To clarify the ongoing application of the prohibition, proposed comment 14(b)-1 further explains, by way of example, that a lender is restricted from initiating transfers to collect payments that later fall due or to collect late fees or returned item fees. The Bureau believes it is important to clarify that the proposed restriction on further transfers, in contrast to restrictions in existing laws and rules (such as the NACHA cap on re-presentments), would not merely limit the number of times a lender can attempt to collect a single failed payment. Last, proposed comment 14(b)-1 explains that the prohibition applies regardless of whether the lender holds an authorization or instrument from the consumer that is otherwise valid under applicable law, such as an authorization to collect payments via preauthorized electronic fund transfers under Regulation E or a post-dated check.

Proposed comment 14(b)-2 clarifies that when the prohibition is triggered, the lender is not prohibited under the rule from initiating a payment transfer in connection with a bona fide subsequent covered loan made to the consumer, provided that the lender has not attempted to initiate two consecutive failed payment transfers in connection with the bona fide subsequent covered loan. The Bureau believes that limiting the restriction in this manner may be appropriate to assure that a consumer who has benefitted from the restriction at one time is not effectively foreclosed from taking out a covered loan with the lender in the future, after her financial situation has improved.

The Bureau seeks comment on what additional provisions may be appropriate to clarify the concept of a bona fide subsequent covered loan, including provisions clarifying how the concept applies in the context of a refinancing. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on what additional provisions may be appropriate to clarify how the proposed prohibition on further payment transfers applies when a consumer has more than one outstanding loan with a lender, including to situations in which a lender makes two failed payment transfer attempts when alternating between covered loans.

14(b)(1) General

Proposed § 1041.14(b)(1) would provide specifically that a lender must not initiate a payment transfer from a consumer's account in connection with a covered loan after the lender has attempted to initiate two consecutive failed payment transfers from the consumer's account in connection with that covered loan. A payment transfer would be defined in § 1041.14(a)(1), as discussed above. Proposed § 1041.14(b)(1) would further specify that a payment transfer is deemed to have failed when it results in a return indicating that the account lacks sufficient funds or, for a lender that is the consumer's account-holding institution, it results in the collection of less than the amount for which the payment transfer is initiated because the account lacks sufficient funds. The specific provision for an account-holding institution thus would apply when such a lender elects to initiate a payment transfer that results in the collection of either no funds or a partial payment.

Proposed comments 14(b)(1)-1 through -4 provide clarification on when a payment transfer is deemed to have failed. Specifically, proposed comment 14(b)(1)-1 explains that for purposes of the prohibition, a failed payment transfer includes but is not limited to debit or withdrawal that is returned unpaid or is declined due to nonsufficient funds in the consumer's account. This proposed comment clarifies, among other things, that the prohibition applies to declined debit card transactions. Proposed comment 14(b)(1)-2 clarifies that the prohibition applies as of the date on which the lender or its agent, such as a payment processor, receives the return of the second consecutive failed transfer or, if the lender is the consumer's account-holding institution, the date on which the transfer is initiated. The Bureau believes that a lender that is the consumer's account-holding institution, in contrast to other lenders, has or should have the ability to know before a transfer is even initiated (or immediately thereafter, at the latest) that the account lacks sufficient funds. Proposed comment 14(b)(1)-3 clarifies that a transfer that results in a return for a reason other than a lack of sufficient funds is not a failed transfer for purposes of the prohibition and provides, as an example, a transfer that is returned due to an incorrectly entered account number. Last, proposed comment 14(b)(1)-4 clarifies how the concept of a failed payment transfer applies to a transfer initiated by a lender that is the consumer's account-holding institution. Specifically, the proposed comment explains that when a lender that is the consumer's account-holding institution initiates a payment transfer that results in the collection of less than the amount for which the payment transfer is initiated because the account lacks sufficient funds, the payment transfer is a failed payment transfer for purposes of the prohibition, regardless of whether the result is classified or coded in the lender's internal procedures, processes, or systems as a return for nonsufficient funds. The Bureau believes that, unlike other lenders, such a lender has or should have the ability to know the result of a payment transfer and the reason for that result without having to rely on a “return,” classified as such, or on a commonly understood reason code. Proposed comment 14(b)(1)-4 further clarifies that a lender that is the consumer's account-holding institution does not initiate a failed payment transfer if the lender merely defers or forgoes debiting or withdrawing payment from an account based on the lender's observation that the account lacks sufficient funds. For such lenders, the Bureau believes it is important to clarify that the concept of a failed payment transfer incorporates the proposed payment transfer definition's central concept that the lender must engage in the affirmative act of initiating a debit or withdrawal from the consumer's account in order for the term to apply.

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed provisions relating to when a payment transfer is deemed to have failed. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the provisions appropriately address situations in which lenders that are the consumers' account-holding institutions initiate payment transfers that result in nonpayment or partial payment, or whether additional provisions may be appropriate, and, if so, what types of provisions. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether such lenders assess account-related fees (that is, fees other than bona fide late fees under the loan agreement) even when they defer or forego collecting payment based on their observation that the account lacks sufficient funds, and, if so, what types of fees and how frequently such fees are assessed, and what additional provisions may be appropriate to clarify how the concept of a failed payment transfer applies in such circumstances. Further, the Bureau seeks comment on whether such lenders assess overdraft fees when their attempts to withdraw payment in connection with proposed covered loans result in the collection of the full payment amount and, if so, how frequently and what additional provisions may be appropriate to apply the concept of a failed payment transfer to such circumstances.

During the SBREFA process and in outreach with industry in developing the proposal, some lenders recommended that the Bureau take a narrower approach in connection with payment attempts by debit cards. One such recommendation suggested that the prohibition against additional withdrawal attempts should not apply when neither the lender nor the consumer's account-holding institution charges an NSF fee in connection with a second failed payment attempt involving a declined debit card transaction. The Bureau understands that depository institutions generally do not charge consumers NSF fees or declined authorization fees for declined debit card transactions, although the Bureau is aware that such fees are charged by some issuers of prepaid cards. The Bureau thus recognizes that debit card transactions present somewhat less risk of harm to consumers. For a number of reasons, however, the Bureau does not believe that this potential effect is sufficient to propose excluding such transactions from the rule. First, the recommended approach does not protect consumers from the risk of incurring an overdraft fee in connection with the lender's third withdrawal attempt. As discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, the Bureau's research focusing on online lenders' attempts to collect covered loan payments through the ACH system indicates that, in the small fraction of cases in which a lender's third attempt succeeds—i.e., the attempt made after the lender has sufficient information indicating that the account is severely distressed—up to one-third are paid out of overdraft coverage. Second, the Bureau believes that the recommended approach would be impracticable to comply with and enforce, given that the lender initiating a payment transfer would not necessarily know the receiving account-holding institution's practice with respect to charging fees on declined or returned transactions. Additionally, the Bureau is concerned that lenders might respond to such an approach by re-characterizing their fees in some other manner. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that it is not appropriate to propose carving out of the rule payment withdrawal attempts by debit cards or prepaid cards, given the narrow circumstances in which the carve-out would apply, administrative challenges, and residual risk to consumers.

The Bureau seeks comment on this proposed approach and on whether payment withdrawal attempts by debit cards or prepaid cards pose other consumer protection concerns. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether and, if so, what types of specific modified approaches to the restriction on payment transfer attempts in § 1041.14(b) may be appropriate to address consumer harms from repeated payment withdrawal attempts made by debit cards or prepaid cards.

In addition to the feedback discussed above, during the SBREFA process the Bureau received two other recommendations in connection with the proposed restrictions on payment withdrawal attempts. One SER suggested that the Bureau delay imposing any restrictions until the full effects of NACHA's recently imposed 15 percent return rate threshold rule can be observed. As discussed in Markets Background—Payments, that rule, which went into effect in 2015, can trigger inquiry and review by NACHA if a merchant's overall return rate for debits made through the ACH network exceeds 15 percent. The Bureau considered the suggestion carefully but does not believe that a delay would be warranted. As noted, the NACHA rule applies only to returned debits through the ACH network. Thus, it places no restrictions on lenders' attempts to withdraw payment through other channels. In fact, as discussed above, anecdotal evidence suggests that lenders are already shifting to withdrawing payments through other channels to avoid the NACHA rule's restrictions. Further, exceeding the threshold merely triggers closer scrutiny by NACHA. To the extent that lenders that make proposed covered loans become subject to the review process, the Bureau believes that they may be able to justify higher return rates by arguing that their rates are consistent with the rates for their market as a whole. However, the Bureau seeks comment on the effects of the NACHA rule on lender practices in submitting payment withdrawal attempts in connection with proposed covered loans through the ACH system and on return rates in that system with respect to such loans.

Another SER recommended that lenders should be permitted to make up to four payment collection attempts per month when a loan is in default. As discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, the Bureau's evidence indicates that for the proposed covered loans studied, after a second consecutive attempt to collect payment fails, the third and subsequent attempts are very likely to fail. The Bureau therefore believes that two consecutive failed payment attempts, rather than four presentment attempts per month, is the appropriate point at which to trigger the rule's payment protections. In addition, the Bureau believes that in many cases in which the proposed prohibition would apply, the consumer may technically be in default on the loan, given that the lender's payment attempts will have been unsuccessful. Thus, the suggestion to permit a large number of payment withdrawal attempts when a loan is in default could effectively swallow the rule being proposed.

14(b)(2) Consecutive Failed Payment Transfers

Proposed § 1041.14(b)(2) would define a first failed payment transfer and a second consecutive failed payment transfer for purposes determining when the prohibition in proposed § 1041.14(b) applies. Each of these proposed definitions is discussed in detail directly below.

14(b)(2)(i) First Failed Payment Transfers

Proposed § 1041.14(b)(2)(i) would provide that a failed transfer is the first failed transfer if it meets any of three conditions. First, proposed § 1041.14(b)(2)(i)(A) would provide that a transfer is the first failed payment transfer if the lender has initiated no other transfer from the consumer's account in connection with the covered loan. This applies to the scenario in which a lender's very first attempt to collect payment on a covered loan fails. Second, proposed § 1041.14(b)(2)(i)(B) would provide that, generally, a failed payment transfer is a first failed payment transfer if the immediately preceding payment transfer was successful, regardless of whether the lender has previously initiated a first failed payment transfer. This proposed provision sets forth the general principle that any failed payment transfer that follows a successful payment transfer is the first failed payment transfer for the purposes of the prohibition in proposed § 1041.14(b). Put another way, an intervening successful payment transfer generally has the effect of resetting the failed payment transfer count to zero. Last, proposed § 1041.14(b)(2)(i)(C) would provide that a payment transfer is a first failed payment transfer if it is the first failed attempt after the lender obtains the consumer's authorization for additional payment transfers pursuant to § 1041.14(c). As discussed in detail below, once the proposed prohibition on future transfers applies, a lender would be permitted under proposed § 1041.14(c) to authorize additional payment transfers authorized by the consumer in accordance with certain requirements and conditions.

Proposed comment 14(b)(2)(i)-1 provides two illustrative examples of a first failed payment transfer.

14(b)(2)(ii) Second Consecutive Failed Payment Transfer

Proposed § 1041.14(b)(2)(ii) would provide that a failed payment transfer is the second consecutive failed payment transfer if the previous payment transfer was a first failed transfer, and would define the concept of a previous payment transfer to include a payment transfer initiated at the same time or on the same day as the failed payment transfer. Proposed comment 14(b)(2)(ii)-1 provides an illustrative example of the general concept of a second consecutive failed payment transfer, while proposed comment 14(b)(2)(ii)-2 provides an illustrative example of a previous payment transfer initiated at the same time and on the same day. Given the high failure rates for same-day presentments discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, the Bureau believes it is important to clarify that the prohibition is triggered when two payment transfers initiated on the same day, including concurrently, fail. The Bureau seeks comment on what additional provisions may be appropriate to clarify how the prohibition applies when a lender initiates multiple payment transfers on the same day or concurrently and two of those payment transfers fail. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on what provisions may be appropriate to address situations in which a lender elects to initiate more than two payment transfers so close together in time that the lender may not receive the two returns indicating that the prohibition has been triggered prior to initiating further payment transfers.

In addition to the comments discussed above, proposed comment 14(b)(2)(ii)-3 clarifies that when a lender initiates a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request pursuant to the exception in § 1041.14(d), the failed transfer count remains at two, regardless of whether the transfer succeeds or fails. Thus, as the proposed comment further provides, the exception is limited to the single transfer authorized by the consumer, and, accordingly, if a payment transfer initiated pursuant to the exception fails, the lender would not be permitted to re-initiate the transfer, such as by re-presenting it through the ACH system, unless the lender obtains a new authorization under § 1041.14(c) or (d). The Bureau believes this limitation is necessary, given that the authorization for an immediate transfer is based on the consumer's understanding of her account's condition only at that specific moment in time, as opposed to its condition in the future.

In addition to the requests for comment above, the Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed provisions for determining when a failed payment transfer is the second consecutive failed payment transfer for purposes of the prohibition in § 1041.14(b). In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the rule should include provisions to address situations in which lenders, after a first failed payment transfer, initiate a payment transfer or series of payment transfers for a substantially smaller amount. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1041.19, the proposed rule includes an illustrative example of how, given certain facts and circumstances, initiating a payment transfer for only a nominal amount after a first failed payment transfer—thereby resetting the failed payment transfer count—could constitute an evasion of the prohibition on further payment transfers in proposed § 1041.14(b). In addition to this proposed anti-evasion example, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the rule should specifically provide that, after a first failed payment transfer, initiating a successful payment transfer or series of payment transfers for a substantially smaller amount (but larger than a nominal amount) tolls the failed payment transfer count at one, rather than resetting it to zero, given that such an amount may not sufficiently indicate that the consumer's account is no longer in distress. If so, the Bureau also seeks comment on what amount may be appropriate for a substantially smaller amount, such as any amount up to 10 percent of the first failed payment transfer's amount, or whether a higher amount threshold up to 25 percent or more is needed to indicate to the lender that the account is no longer distressed.

14(b)(2)(iii) Different Payment Channel

Proposed § 1041.14(b)(2)(iii) would establish the principle that alternating between payment channels does not reset the failed payment transfer count. Specifically, it would provide that a failed payment transfer meeting the conditions in proposed § 1041.14(b)(2)(ii) is the second consecutive failed transfer regardless of whether the first failed transfer was initiated through a different payment channel. Proposed comment 14(b)(2)(iii)-1 would provide an illustrative example of this concept.

14(c) Exception for Additional Payment Transfers Authorized by the Consumer

As discussed above, proposed § 1041.13 would provide that, in connection with a covered loan, it is an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account after the lender's second consecutive attempt to withdraw payment from the account has failed due to a lack of sufficient funds, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further payment withdrawals from the account. Whereas proposed § 1041.14(b) would establish the prohibition on further payment withdrawals, proposed § 1041.14(c) and (d) would establish requirements for obtaining the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further payment withdrawals. Proposed § 1041.14(c) would be framed as an exception to the prohibition, even though payment withdrawals made pursuant to its requirements would not fall within the scope of the unfair and abusive practice preliminarily identified in proposed § 1041.13. (Proposed § 1041.14(d), discussed in detail below, would establish a second exception for payment withdrawals that would otherwise fall within the scope of the preliminarily identified unfair and abusive practice; that exception would apply when the consumer authorizes, and the lender initiates, a transfer meeting the definition of a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request, subject to certain requirements and conditions.)

As noted in the discussion of proposed § 1041.14(b)(2)(i)(C), a new authorization obtained pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(c) would reset to zero the failed payment transfer count under proposed § 1041.14(b), whereas an authorization obtained pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(d) would not. Accordingly, a lender would be permitted under § 1041.14(c) to initiate one or more additional payment transfers that are authorized by the consumer in accordance with certain requirements and conditions, and subject to the general prohibition on initiating a payment transfer after two consecutive failed attempts. Thus, for example, when the prohibition in § 1041.14(b) has been triggered and the lender subsequently obtains under the exception the consumer's authorization to debit the consumer's account on a recurring basis, the lender could rely on that authorization to initiate additional payment transfers in accordance with the terms agreed to by the consumer, until and unless the lender initiates two consecutive failed payment transfers, thereby triggering the prohibition again.

The proposed authorization requirements and conditions in § 1041.14(c) are designed to assure that, before a lender initiates another payment transfer (if any) after triggering the prohibition, the consumer does in fact want the lender to resume making payment transfers and that the consumer understands and agrees to the specific date, amount, and payment channel for those succeeding payment transfers. As discussed in detail in connection with each proposed provision, below, the Bureau believes that requiring that the key terms of each transfer be clearly communicated to the consumer before the consumer decides whether to grant authorization will help to assure that the consumer's decision is an informed one and that the consumer understands the consequences that may flow from granting a new authorization and help the consumer avoid future failed payment transfers. The Bureau believes that, when this assurance is provided, it no longer would be unfair or abusive for a lender to initiate payment transfers that accord with the new authorization, at least until such point that the lender initiates two consecutive failed payment transfers pursuant to the new authorization.

The Bureau recognizes that in some cases, lenders and consumers might want to use an authorization under this exception to resume payment withdrawals according to the same terms and schedule that the consumer authorized prior to the two consecutive failed attempts. In other cases, lenders and consumers may want to establish a new authorization to accommodate a change in the payment schedule—as might be the case, for example, when the consumer enters into a workout agreement with the lender. Accordingly, the proposed exception is designed to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate both circumstances. In either circumstance, however, the lender would be permitted to initiate only those transfers authorized by the consumer under § 1041.14(c).

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(1) would establish the general exception to the prohibition on additional payment transfer attempts under § 1041.14(b), while the remaining subparagraphs would specify particular requirements and conditions. First, proposed § 1041.14(c)(2) would establish the general requirement that for the exception to apply to an additional payment transfer, the transfer's specific date, amount, and payment channel must be authorized by the consumer. In addition, § 1041.14(c)(2) would address the application of the specific date requirement to re-initiating a returned payment transfer and also address authorization of transfers to collect a late fee or returned item fee, if such fees are incurred in the future. Second, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3) would establish procedural and other requirements and conditions for requesting and obtaining the consumer's authorization. Last, proposed § 1041.14(c)(4) would address circumstances in which the new authorization becomes null and void. Each of these sets of requirements and conditions is discussed in detail below.

Proposed comment 14(c)-1 provides a summary of the exception's main provisions and note the availability of the exception in § 1041.14(d).

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed exception in § 1041.14(c).

14(c)(1) General

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(1) would provide that, notwithstanding the prohibition in § 1041.14(b), a lender is permitted to initiate additional payment transfers from a consumer's account after two consecutive transfers by the lender have failed if the transfers are authorized by the consumer in accordance with the requirements and conditions of § 1041.14(c), or if the lender executes a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request under § 1041.14(d). Proposed comment 14(c)(1)-1 explains that the consumer's authorization required by § 1041.14(c) is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any underlying payment authorization or instrument required to be obtained from the consumer under applicable laws. The Bureau notes, for example, that an authorization obtained pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(c) would not take the place of an authorization that a lender is required to obtain under applicable laws to collect payments via RCCs, if the lender and consumer wish to resume payment transfers using that method. However, in cases where lenders and consumers wish to resume payment transfers via preauthorized electronic fund transfers as that term is defined in Regulation E, the Bureau believes that, given the high degree of specificity required by proposed § 1041.14(c), lenders could comply with the authorization requirements in Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.10(b) and the requirements in proposed § 1041.14(c) within a single authorization process. The Bureau seeks comment on whether and, if so, what types of additional provisions may be appropriate to clarify whether and how an authorization obtained pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(c) would satisfy the authorization requirements for preauthorized electronic fund transfers in Regulation E. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether additional provisions may be appropriate to clarify how the authorization requirements in proposed § 1041.14(c) apply in circumstances where the lender and consumer wish to resume payment transfers using a payment method other than preauthorized electronic fund transfers, and, if so, what types of provisions.

14(c)(2) General Authorization Requirements and Conditions

14(c)(2)(i) Required Transfer Terms

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(2)(i) would establish the general requirement that for the exception in proposed § 1041.14(c) to apply to an additional payment transfer, the transfer's specific date, amount, and payment channel must be authorized by the consumer. The Bureau believes that requiring lenders to explain these key terms of each transfer to consumers when seeking authorization will help to ensure that consumers can make an informed decision as between granting authorization for additional payment transfers and other convenient repayment options, such as payments by cash or money order, “push” bill payment services, and single immediate payment transfers authorized pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(d), and thus help consumers avoid future failed payment transfers.

In addition, if a lender wishes to obtain permission to initiate ongoing payment transfers from a consumer whose account has already been subject to two consecutive failed attempts, the Bureau believes it is important to require the lender to obtain the consumer's agreement to the specific terms of each future transfer from the outset, rather than to provide for less specificity upfront and rely instead on the fact that under proposed § 1041.15(b), every consumer with a covered loan will receive notice containing the terms of each upcoming payment transfer. As discussed above, the Bureau believes that, in general, the proposed required notice for all payment transfers would help to reduce harms that may occur from payment transfers by alerting the consumers to the upcoming attempt in sufficient time for them to arrange to make a required payment when they can afford to do so and to make choices that may minimize the attempt's impact on their accounts when the timing of a payment is not aligned with their finances. However, the Bureau believes that consumers whose accounts have already experienced two failed payment withdrawal attempts in succession would have demonstrated a degree of financial distress that makes it unlikely that a notice of another payment attempt would enable them to avoid further harm.

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed exception's core requirement that the date, amount, and payment channel of each additional payment transfer be authorized by the consumer. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether less prescriptive authorization requirements may provide adequate consumer protections and, if so, what types of less prescriptive requirements may be appropriate.

Proposed comment 14(c)(2)(i)-1 explains the general requirement that the terms of each additional payment transfer must be authorized by the consumer. It further clarifies that for the exception to apply to an additional payment transfer, these required terms must be included in the signed authorization that the lender is required to obtain from the consumer under § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii).

Proposed comment 14(c)(2)(i)-2 clarifies that the requirement that the specific date of each additional transfer be expressly authorized is satisfied if the consumer authorizes the month, day, and year of the transfer.

Proposed comment 14(c)(2)(i)-3 clarifies that the exception does not apply if the lender initiates an additional payment transfer for an amount larger than the amount authorized by the consumer, unless it satisfies the requirements and conditions in proposed § 1041.14(c)(2)(iii)(B) for adding the amount of a late fee or returned item fee to an amount authorized by the consumer. (The requirements and conditions in proposed § 1041.14(c)(2)(iii)(B) are discussed in detail, below.)

Proposed comment 14(c)(2)(i)-4 clarifies that a payment transfer initiated pursuant to § 1041.14(c) is initiated for the specific amount authorized by the consumer if its amount is equal to or smaller than the authorized amount. The Bureau recognizes that in certain circumstances it may be necessary for the lender to initiate transfers for a smaller amount than specifically authorized, including, for example, when the lender needs to exclude from the transfer the amount of a partial prepayment. In addition, the Bureau believes that this provision may provide useful flexibility in instances where the prohibition on further payment transfers is triggered at a time when the consumer has not yet fully drawn down on a line of credit. In such instances, lenders and consumers may want to structure the new authorization to accommodate payments on future draws by the consumer. With this provision for smaller amounts, the lender could seek authorization for additional payment transfers for the payment amount that would be due if the consumer has drawn the full amount of remaining credit, and then would be permitted under the exception to initiate the transfers for amounts smaller than the specific amount, if necessary.

The Bureau seeks comment on this provision for smaller amounts. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether this provision inappropriately weakens the consumer protections accorded by the requirement that the specific transfer amount be authorized by the consumer, and, if so, what types of additional protections should be included to ensure greater protections in a manner that addresses the practical considerations noted above. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the provision sufficiently addresses the specific-amount requirement's application in instances where the consumer has credit available on a line of credit, or whether specific provisions should be included to clarify the requirement's application in these instances and, if so, what types of provisions.

14(c)(2)(ii) Application of Specific Date Requirement to Re-Initiating a Returned Payment Transfer

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(2)(ii) would establish a narrow exception to the general requirement that an additional payment transfer be initiated on the date authorized by the consumer. Specifically, it would provide that when a payment transfer authorized by the consumer pursuant to the exception is returned for nonsufficient funds, the lender is permitted to re-present the transfer on or after the date authorized by the consumer, provided that the returned transfer has not triggered the prohibition on further payment transfers in § 1041.14(b). The Bureau believes that this narrow exception would accommodate practical considerations in payment processing and notes that the prohibition in proposed § 1041.14(b) will protect the consumer if the re-initiation fails.

14(c)(2)(iii) Special Authorization Requirements and Conditions for Payment Transfers to Collect a Late Fee or Returned Item Fee

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(2)(iii) contains two separate provisions that would permit a lender to obtain the consumer's authorization for, and to initiate, additional payment transfers to collect a late fee or returned item fee. Both of these provisions are intended to permit lenders to use a payment authorization obtained pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(c)(2)(iii) to collect a fee that was not anticipated when the authorization was obtained, without having to go through a second authorization process under proposed § 1041.14(c).

First, proposed § 1041.14(c)(2)(iii)(A) would permit a lender to initiate an additional payment transfer solely to collect a late fee or returned item fee without obtaining a new consumer authorization for the specific date and amount of the transfer only if the lender, in the course of obtaining the consumer's authorization for additional payment transfers, has informed the consumer of the fact that individual payment transfers to collect a late fee or returned item fee may be initiated and has obtained the consumer's general authorization for such transfers in advance. Specifically, the lender could initiate such transfers only if the consumer's authorization obtained pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(c) includes a statement, in terms that are clear and readily understandable to the consumer, that the lender may initiate a payment transfer solely to collect a late fee or returned item fee. In addition, the lender would be required to specify in the statement the highest amount for such fees that may be charged, as well as the payment channel to be used. The Bureau believes this required statement may be appropriate to help ensure that the consumer is aware of key information about such transfers—particularly the highest possible amount—when the consumer is deciding whether to grant an authorization.

Proposed comment 14(c)(2)(iii)(A)-1 clarifies that the consumer's authorization for an additional payment transfer solely to collect a late fee or returned item fee need not satisfy the general requirement that the consumer must authorize the specific date and amount of each additional payment transfer. Proposed comment 14(c)(2)(iii)(A)-2 provides, as an example, that the requirement to specify to highest possible amount that may be charged for a fee is satisfied if the required statement specifies the maximum amount permissible under the loan agreement. Proposed comment 14(c)(2)(iii)(A)-3 provides that if a fee may vary due to remaining loan balance or other factors, the lender must assume the factors that result in the highest possible amount in calculating the specified amount.

The second provision, proposed § 1041.14(c)(2)(iii)(B), would permit a lender to add the amount of one late fee or one returned item fee to the specific amounts authorized by the consumer as provided under proposed § 1041.14(c)(2) only if the lender has informed the consumer of the fact that such transfers for combined amounts may be initiated and has obtained the consumer's general authorization for such transfers in advance. Specifically, the lender could initiate transfers for such combined amounts only if the consumer's authorization includes a statement, in terms that are clear and readily understandable to the consumer, that the amount of one late fee or one returned item fee may be added to any payment transfer authorized by the consumer. In addition, the lender would be required to specify in the statement the highest amount for such fees that may be charged, as well as the payment channel to be used. As with the similar requirement in proposed § 1041.14(c)(iii)(A), the Bureau believes this required statement may be appropriate to ensure that the consumer is aware of key information about such transfers—particularly the highest possible amount—when the consumer is deciding whether to grant an authorization.

Proposed comment 14(c)(2)(iii)(B)-1 clarifies that the exception in § 1041.14(c) does not apply to an additional payment transfer that includes the additional amount of a late fee or returned item fee unless the consumer authorizes the transfer in accordance with the requirements and conditions in § 1041.14(c)(2)(iii)(B). Proposed comment 14(c)(2)(iii)(B)-2 cross-references comments 14(c)(2)(iii)(A)-2 and -3 for guidance on how to satisfy the requirement to specify the highest possible amount of a fee.

The Bureau seeks comment all aspects of these proposed provisions for additional payment transfers to collect unanticipated late fees and returned item fees. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the requirements provide adequate protections from consumer harms that may result from such additional payment transfers. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether including model statements in the rule would facilitate compliance and more effective disclosure of the required information.

14(c)(3) Requirements and Conditions for Obtaining the Consumer's Authorization

14(c)(3)(i) General

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(3) would establish a three-step process for obtaining a consumer's authorization for additional payment transfers. First, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii) would contain provisions for requesting the consumer's authorization. The permissible methods for requesting authorization would allow lenders considerable flexibility. For example, lenders would be permitted to provide the transfer terms to the consumer in writing or (subject to certain requirements and conditions) electronically without regard to the consumer consent and other provisions of the E-Sign Act. In addition, lenders would be permitted to request authorization orally by telephone, subject to certain requirements and conditions. In the second step, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii) would provide that, for an authorization to be valid under the exception, the lender must obtain an authorization that is signed or otherwise agreed to by the consumer and that includes the required terms for each additional payment transfer. The lender would be permitted to obtain the consumer's signature in writing or electronically, provided the E-Sign Act requirements for electronic records and signatures are met. This is intended to facilitate requesting and obtaining the consumer's signed authorization in the same communication. In the third and final step, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii) also would require the lender to provide to the consumer memorialization of the authorization no later than the date on which the first transfer authorized by the consumer is initiated. The lender would be permitted to provide the memorialization in writing or electronically, without regard to the consumer consent and other provisions of the E-Sign Act, provided it is in a retainable form. Each of these three provisions for obtaining the consumer's authorization is discussed in detail, below.

In developing this three-step approach, the Bureau is endeavoring to ensure that the precise terms of the additional transfers for which a lender seeks authorization are effectively communicated to the consumer during each step of the process and that the consumer has the ability to decline authorizing any payment transfers with terms that the consumer believes are likely to cause challenges in managing her account. In addition, the Bureau designed the approach to be compatible with lenders' existing systems and procedures for obtaining other types of payment authorizations, particularly authorizations for preauthorized, or “recurring,” electronic fund transfers under Regulation E. Accordingly, the proposed procedures generally are designed to mirror existing requirements in Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.10(b). Regulation E requires that preauthorized electronic fund transfers from a consumer's account be authorized “only by a writing signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer.” Under EFTA and Regulation E, companies can obtain the required consumer authorizations for preauthorized electronic fund transfers in several ways. Consumer authorizations can be provided in paper form or electronically. The commentary to Regulation E explains that the rule “permits signed, written authorizations to be provided electronically,” and specifies that the “writing and signature requirements . . . are satisfied by complying with the [E-Sign Act] which defines electronic records and electronic signatures.” Regulation E does not prohibit companies from obtaining signed, written authorizations from consumers over the phone if the E-Sign Act requirements for electronic records and signatures are met. In addition, Regulation E requires persons that obtain authorizations for preauthorized electronic fund transfers to provide a copy of the terms of the authorization to the consumer. The copy of the terms of the authorization must be provided in paper form or electronically. The Bureau understands that this requirement in Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.10(b) is not satisfied by providing the consumer with a recording of a telephone call.

During the SBREFA process, a small entity representative recommended that the procedures for obtaining consumers' re-authorization after lenders trigger the proposed cap on failed presentments should be similar to existing procedures for obtaining consumers' authorizations to collect payment by preauthorized electronic fund transfers under Regulation E. The Bureau believes that harmonizing the two procedures would reduce costs and burdens on lenders by permitting them to incorporate the proposed procedures for obtaining authorizations into existing systems. Accordingly, as discussed above, the proposed approach is designed to achieve this goal.

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed approach for obtaining authorizations. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the proposed approach would provide adequate protections to consumers and whether it would achieve the intended goal of reducing lender costs and burdens by being compatible with existing systems and procedures.

14(c)(3)(ii) Provision of Transfer Terms to Consumer

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii) would establish requirements and conditions for providing to the consumer the required terms of each additional payment transfer for purposes of requesting the consumer's authorization. The Bureau is proposing these provisions pursuant to its authority under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act to prescribe rules “to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product or service, both initially and over the term of the product or service, are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service . . . , ” in addition to its authority pursuant to its authority under section 1031(b) of the Act to include in its rules identifying unfair, abusive, or deceptive acts or practices requirements for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices.

The Bureau has designed the process for requesting authorization to work in tandem with the requirements in proposed § 1041.15(d) for providing to consumers a consumer rights notice informing them that the restriction on further payment transfers has been triggered, and contemplates that lenders may often send the notice and the request for authorization together. However, if lenders choose to bifurcate the notice and authorization process, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii) would provide that the request for authorization can be made no earlier than the date on which the notice is provided. Further, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii) would provide that the consumer's authorization can be obtained no earlier than when the consumer is considered to receive the notice, as specified in the proposed rule. In addition to these requirements, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii) would require that the request for authorization contain the required payment transfer terms and certain other required elements, and would permit the request to be made through a number of different means of communication. The Bureau believes that the provisions in proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii) would help to ensure that consumers make fully informed decisions whether to grant a new authorization, including by requiring that consumers first be informed of their rights under the proposed restriction on further payment withdrawals and by helping to ensure that consumers can make an informed decision as between granting authorization for additional payment transfers and other convenient repayment options, such as payments by cash or money order, “push” bill payment services, and single immediate payment transfers authorized pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(d).

Specifically, under proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii), a lender would be required to request authorization by providing the payment transfer terms required by § 1041.14(c)(2)(i) (i.e., the specific date, amount, and payment channel of each transfer) and, if applicable, the statements required by § 1041.14(c)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) (i.e., for purposes of seeking the consumer's authorization for payment transfers to collect certain fees) no earlier than the date on which the lender provides to the consumer the consumer rights notice required by § 1041.15(d). (As discussed in detail, below, a lender would be required to provide the notice to the consumer no later than three business days after the prohibition on further payment transfers is triggered.) As noted above, while the lender would be permitted to request the consumer's authorization on the same day that the lender provides the consumer rights notice, the authorization would not be valid unless it is signed or otherwise agreed to by the consumer after the consumer is considered to receive the notice as specified in proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii), discussed in detail below.

Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(ii)-1 explains that while a lender is permitted to request authorization on or after the day that the lender provides the consumer rights notice to the consumer, the exception in § 1041.14(c) does not apply unless the consumer's signed authorization is obtained no earlier than the date on which the consumer is considered to have received the notice, as specified in § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii).

Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(ii)-2 clarifies that a lender is not prohibited under the provisions from providing different options for the consumer to select from with respect to the date, amount, and payment channel of each additional payment transfer when requesting the consumer's authorization. It further clarifies that the lender is not prohibited under the provisions from making a follow-up request by providing a different set of terms for the consumer to consider. Last, as an example, it provides that if the consumer declines an initial request to authorize two recurring transfers for a particular amount, the lender may make a follow-up request for the consumer to authorize three recurring transfers for a smaller amount. The Bureau believes it is important to emphasize that the approach in proposed § 1041.14(c) is designed to ensure that when lenders seek authorization, consumers are not simply dictated the terms of additional payment transfers but rather are able to make an informed decision whether to grant authorization based on their own understanding of the consequences that may flow from their decision to do so.

With respect to how the request for authorization can be conveyed to the consumer, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii) would permit the lender to provide the required terms and statements to the consumer as a predicate to requesting authorization by any one of three specified means. First, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(A) would permit the lender to provide the terms and statements in writing, either in person or by mail. Second, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(A) also would permit the lender to provide the terms and statements in a retainable form by email if the consumer has consented to receive electronic disclosures in this manner under § 1041.15(a)(4) or agrees to receive the terms and statements by email in the course of a communication initiated by the consumer in response to the consumer rights notice required by § 1041.15(d). Third, under proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(B), lenders could request authorization by oral telephone communication in certain limited circumstances.

Accordingly, when a lender is already providing the payments-related notices in § 1041.15(d) to the consumer by email in accordance with the consumer's valid consent, the lender could request authorization in that manner under proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(A) without having to go through a second email-delivery consent process. In addition, a lender could provide the terms and statements by email when the lender has not previously obtained the consumer's consent to receive disclosures in that manner, provided that the consumer agrees in the course of a communication initiated by the consumer in response to the consumer rights notice required by § 1041.15(d). Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(ii)(A)-1 provides an illustrative example of how a consumer agrees to receive the request for authorization by email in the course of a communication initiated by the consumer in response to the consumer rights notice.

The Bureau believes that permitting lenders to request authorization by email if the consumer agrees when affirmatively responding to the consumer rights notice would ensure that consumers are able to discuss with lender their options for repaying in a timely manner, and, in addition, help to ensure that when deciding whether to authorize additional payment transfers, consumers are aware of their rights as stated in the notice, including the protections accorded them by the limitation on additional payment transfers. The Bureau notes that email would be the only electronic means of requesting authorization permitted under proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(A). Accordingly, lenders could not transmit the payment transfer terms and statements to the consumer by text message or mobile application for purposes of requesting authorization, even if the consumer has consented to receive electronic disclosures by text or mobile application for purposes of receiving the payment withdrawal notices under proposed § 1014.15(b). For the payment withdrawal notices, the Bureau is proposing a two-part disclosure whereby the consumer would receive a truncated notice by text or mobile application and then click through to get the full notice. With regard to requests for new authorizations, however, the Bureau believes that it may be important for consumers to be able to access the entire request in the first instance without having to click through and without having to contend with, when viewing the request, the character limitations and screen space restrictions that typically apply to communications by text message or mobile application. The Bureau is therefore proposing to permit electronic requests for authorization to be provided to consumers only by email (except for electronic requests made by oral telephone communication in certain limited circumstances). However, the Bureau seeks comment on this proposed approach. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the rule should include provisions permitting lenders to provide electronic requests for authorization via text message or mobile application, and on what specific requirements as to access and formatting may be appropriate for electronic requests, including whether it may be appropriate to adopt a two-part disclosure similar to what the Bureau is proposing for the payment withdrawal notices.

Last, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(B) would permit the lender to provide the terms and statements to the consumer by oral telephone communication in certain limited circumstances. Specifically, it would permit the lender to provide the terms and statements by oral telephone communication if the consumer affirmatively contacts the lender in that manner in response to the consumer rights notice required by § 1041.15(d) and agrees to receive the terms and statements in that manner in the course of, and as part of, the same communication. (Relatedly, proposed § 1041.14(c)(iii)(B), discussed below, would provide that, if the consumer grants authorization in the course of an oral telephone communication, the lender must record the call and retain the recording.) The Bureau is aware that some lenders currently obtain consumers' authorizations for preauthorized electronic fund transfers under Regulation E via recorded telephone conversations. This provision is designed to be compatible with such practices. However, by limiting such authorizations only to situations in which the consumer has affirmatively contacted the lender by telephone in response to the required notice, the provision also is designed to ensure that such authorizations are obtained from the consumer only when the consumer has sought out the lender, rather than in the course of a collections call that the lender makes to the consumer.

Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(ii)(A)-2 clarifies that the required payment transfer terms and statements may be provided to the consumer electronically in accordance with the requirements for requesting the consumer's authorization in § 1041.14(c)(2)(ii) without regard to the E-Sign Act. The proposed comment further clarifies, however, that in cases where the consumer responds to the request with an electronic authorization, the authorization is valid under § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii) only if it is signed in accordance with the signature requirements in the E-Sign Act. In addition, the comment cross-references § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii) and comment 14(c)(3)(iii)-1 for additional guidance.

Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(ii)(A)-3 clarifies that a lender could make the request for authorization in writing or by email in tandem with providing the consumer rights notice in § 1041.15(d), subject to certain requirements and conditions. Specifically, the proposed comment clarifies that a lender is not prohibited under the provisions in § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(A) from requesting authorization and providing the consumer rights notice in the same communication, such as in a single written mailing or a single email to the consumer. It further clarifies, however, that the consumer rights notice still must be provided in accordance with the requirements and conditions in § 1041.15(d), including, but not limited to, the segregation requirements that apply to the notice. The proposed comment further provides, as an example, that if a lender mails the request for authorization and the notice to the consumer in the same envelope, the lender must provide the notice on a separate piece of paper, as required under § 1041.15(d).

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed provisions for providing the payment transfer terms and statements to the consumer as a predicate to requesting the consumer's authorization. In particular, the Bureau seeks on comment on whether for purposes of requesting authorization, lenders should be permitted to provide the required terms and statements by oral telephone communication. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on whether including model statements or forms in the rule would facilitate compliance and enable more effective disclosure of the required terms and statements.

14(c)(3)(iii) Signed Authorization Required

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii) would establish requirements and conditions that the lender must satisfy for a consumer's authorization to be valid under the exception.

14(c)(3)(iii)(A) General

Specifically, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii)(A) would provide that for an authorization to be valid, it must be signed or otherwise agreed to by the consumer in a format that memorializes the required payment transfer terms and, if applicable, required statements to which the consumer has agreed. In addition, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii)(A) would provide that the signed authorization must be obtained no earlier than the date on which the consumer receives the consumer rights notice required by § 1041.15(d). It would further provide that, for purposes of the provision, the consumer is considered to receive the notice at the time it is provided in person or electronically, or, if the notice is provided by mail, the earlier of the third business day after mailing or the date on which the consumer affirmatively responds to the mailed notice.

The Bureau believes that these requirements would help to ensure that consumers' decisions to authorize additional payment transfers are made in full awareness of their rights as stated in the notice, including their protections under the restriction on additional payment transfers. The Bureau further believes that these requirements would accommodate situations in which the consumer wishes to authorize additional payment transfers promptly, given that in many instances the lender could obtain the consumer's authorization on the same day that the notice is provided and received, particularly when the notice is provided in person or electronically.

Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(iii)(A)-1 explains that, for authorizations obtained electronically, the requirement that the authorization be signed or otherwise agreed to by the consumer is satisfied if the E-Sign Act requirements for electronic records and signatures are met. The E-Sign Act establishes that electronic signatures and electronic records are valid if they meet certain criteria. An electronic signature is “an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.” An electronic record is “a contract or other record created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means.” The proposed comment further provides, as two examples, that the requirement is satisfied by an email from the consumer or by a code entered by the consumer into the consumer's telephone keypad, assuming that in each case the signature requirements in the E-Sign Act are complied with.

Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(iii)(A)-2 explains that a consumer affirmatively responds to the consumer rights notice that was provided by mail when the consumer calls the lender on the telephone to discuss repayment options after receiving the notice.

14(c)(3)(iii)(B) Special Requirements for Authorization Obtained by Oral Telephone Communication

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii)(B) would require that, if the consumer's authorization is granted in the course of an oral telephone communication, the lender must record the call and retain the recording. The Bureau is proposing this requirement for compliance purposes. The Bureau is aware that most lenders already record and retain calls for purposes of obtaining consumers' authorizations under Regulation E or for servicing and collections purposes, and thus believes that lenders already have in place the technology and systems necessary to comply with this requirement. Nonetheless, the Bureau seeks comment on the burdens, costs, or other challenges of complying with this requirement.

14(c)(3)(iii)(C) Memorialization Required

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii)(C) would establish procedures for providing a memorialization of the authorization to the consumer when the authorization is granted in the course of a recorded telephonic conversation or is otherwise not immediately retainable by the consumer at the time of signature. The Bureau is proposing these provisions pursuant to its authority under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act to prescribe rules “to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product or service, both initially and over the term of the product or service, are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service . . . ,” in addition to its authority under section 1031(b) of the Act to include in its rules identifying unfair, abusive, or deceptive acts or practices requirements for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices.

Specifically, in such circumstances, proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii) would require lenders to provide to the consumer a memorialization in a retainable form no later than the date on which the first payment transfer authorized by the consumer is initiated. These requirements are intended to ensure that the terms of the payment transfers authorized by consumers are provided to them in a manner that permits them to review authorizations for consistency with their understanding of the terms and, when necessary, contact the lender to request clarification or discuss potential errors. In addition, for consumers' future reference and planning purposes, the copy would provide a record of all additional payment transfers that the lender may initiate pursuant to the authorization. Proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(iii)(C) would further provide that the memorialization may be provided to the consumer by email in accordance with the requirements and conditions in § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(A). Accordingly, lenders could provide the memorialization by email if the consumer has consented to receive disclosures in that manner under § 1041.15(a)(4) or has so agreed in the course of a communication initiated by the consumer in response to the consumer rights notice required by § 1041.15(d). This provision is designed to ensure that consumers receive the copy in the timeliest possible manner and to reduce the burden on lenders of providing the copy.

Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(iii)(C)-1 clarifies that the copy is deemed to be provided to the consumer on the date it is mailed or transmitted. Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(iii)(C)-2 clarifies that the requirement that the memorialization be provided in a retainable form is not satisfied by a copy of recorded telephone call, notwithstanding that the authorization was obtained in that manner. Proposed comment 14(c)(3)(iv)(C)-3 clarifies that a lender is permitted under the provision to the provide the memorialization to the consumer by email in accordance with the requirements and conditions in § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(A), regardless of whether the lender requested the consumer's authorization in that manner. It further clarifies, by providing an example, that if the lender requested the consumer's authorization by telephone but also has obtained the consumer's consent to receive electronic disclosures by email under proposed § 1041.15(a)(4), the lender is permitted under the provision to provide the copy to the consumer by email, as specified in proposed § 1041.14(c)(3)(ii)(A).

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of this proposed provision. In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the consumer should be accorded a specified period of time to review the terms of the authorization as set forth in the memorialization before the lender initiates the first payment transfer pursuant to the authorization. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on the burdens and costs for lenders of providing the memorialization.

14(c)(4) Expiration of Authorization

Proposed § 1041.14(c)(4) specifies the circumstances in which an authorization for additional payment transfers obtained pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(c) expires or becomes inoperative. First, proposed § 1041.14(c)(4)(i) provides that a consumer's authorization becomes null and void for purposes of the exception if the lender obtains a subsequent new authorization from the consumer pursuant to the exception. This provision is intended to ensure that, when necessary, lenders can obtain a consumer's new authorization to initiate transfers for different terms, or to continue collecting payments on the loan, and that such new authorization would supersede the prior authorization. Second, proposed § 1041.14(c)(4)(ii) provides that a consumer's authorization becomes null and void for purposes of the exception if two consecutive payment transfers initiated pursuant to the consumer's authorization have failed, as specified in proposed § 1041.14(b). The Bureau is proposing this provision for clarification purposes.

14(d) Exception for Initiating a Single Immediate Payment Transfer at the Consumer's Request

Proposed § 1041.14(d) would set forth a second exception to the prohibition on initiating further payment transfers from a consumer's account in § 1041.14(b). In contrast to the exception available under proposed § 1041.14(c), which would allow lenders to initiate multiple, recurring additional payment transfers authorized by the consumer in a single authorization, this exception would permit lenders to initiate a payment transfer only on a one-time basis immediately upon receipt of the consumer's authorization, while leaving the overall prohibition in place. This limited approach is designed to facilitate the collection of payments that are proffered by the consumer for immediate processing, without requiring compliance with the multi-stage process in proposed § 1041.14(c), and to ensure that consumers have the option to continue making payments, one payment at a time, after the prohibition in proposed § 1041.14(b) has been triggered, without having to provide lenders broader, ongoing access to their accounts.

Specifically, subject to certain timing requirements, proposed § 1041.14(d) would permit lenders to initiate a payment transfer from a consumer's account after the prohibition has been triggered, without obtaining the consumer's authorization for additional payment transfers in accordance with proposed § 1041.14(c), if the consumer authorizes a one-time electronic fund transfer or proffers a signature check for immediate processing. Under proposed § 1041.14(d)(1), a payment transfer initiated by either of these two payment methods would be required to meet the definition of a “single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request” in proposed § 1041.14(a)(2). Thus, for the exception to apply, the lender must initiate the electronic fund transfer or deposit the check within one business day after receipt.

In addition, proposed § 1041.14(d)(2) would provide that, for the exception to apply, the consumer must authorize the underlying one-time electronic fund transfer or provide the underlying signature check to the lender, as applicable, no earlier than the date on which the lender provides to the consumer the consumer rights notice required by proposed § 1041.15(d) or on the date that the consumer affirmatively contacts the lender to discuss repayment options, whichever date is earlier. The Bureau believes that many consumers who elect to authorize only a single transfer under this exception will do so in part because they have already received the notice, have been informed of their rights, and have chosen to explore their options with the lender. The Bureau also believes that in some cases, consumers may contact the lender after discovering that the lender has made two failed payment attempts (such as by reviewing their online bank statements) before the lender has provided the notice. Moreover, by definition, this exception would not require the consumer to decide whether to provide the lender an authorization to resume initiating payment transfer from her account on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, the Bureau believes it is unnecessary to propose requirements similar to those proposed for the broader exception in proposed § 1041.14(c), as discussed above, to ensure that consumers have received the notice informing them of their rights at the time of authorization.

Proposed comment 14(d)-1 cross-references proposed § 1041.14(b)(a)(2) and accompanying commentary for guidance on payment transfers that meet the definition of a single immediate payment transfer at the consumer's request. Proposed comment 14(d)-2 clarifies how the prohibition on further payment transfers in proposed § 1041.14(b) continues to apply when a lender initiates a payment transfer pursuant to the exception in proposed § 1041.14(d). Specifically, the proposed comment clarifies that a lender is permitted under the exception to initiate the single payment transfer requested by the consumer only once and thus is prohibited under § 1041.14(b) from re-initiating the payment transfer if it fails, unless the lender subsequently obtains the consumer's authorization to re-initiate the payment transfer under § 1041.14(c) or (d). The proposed comment further clarifies that a lender is permitted to initiate any number of payment transfers from a consumer's account pursuant to the exception in § 1041.14(d), provided that the requirements and conditions are satisfied for each such transfer. Accordingly, the exception would be available as a payment option on a continuing basis after the prohibition in proposed § 1041.14(b) has been triggered, as long as each payment transfer is authorized and initiated in accordance with the proposed exception's timing and other requirements. In addition, the proposed comment cross-references comment 14(b)(2)(ii)-3 for further guidance on how the prohibition in § 1041.14(b) applies to the exception in § 1041.14(d).

Proposed comment 14(d)-3 explains, by providing an example, that a consumer affirmatively contacts the lender when the consumer calls the lender after noticing on her bank statement that the lender's last two payment withdrawal attempts have been returned for nonsufficient funds.

The Bureau believes that the proposed requirements and conditions in § 1041.14(d) would prevent the harms that otherwise would occur if the lender—absent obtaining the consumer's authorization for additional payment transfers under proposed § 1041.14(c)—were to initiate further transfers after two consecutive failed attempts. The Bureau believes that consumers who authorize such transfers will do so based on their firsthand knowledge of their account balance at the time that the transfer, by definition, must be initiated. As a result of these two factors, the Bureau believes there is a significantly reduced risk that the transfer will fail.

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of the exception in proposed § 1041.14(d). In particular, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the rule should include provisions to ensure that consumers have received the required notice informing them of their rights at the time of authorization.

Section 1041.15 Disclosure of Payment Transfer Attempts

Overview

As discussed above in Market Concerns—Short-term Loans and Market Concerns—Long-Term Loans, consumers who use payday and payday installment loans tend to be in economically precarious positions. They have low to moderate incomes, live paycheck to paycheck, and generally have no savings to fall back on. They are particularly susceptible to having cash shortfalls when payments are due and can ill afford additional fees on top of the high cost of these loans. At the same time, as discussed above in Market Concerns—Payments, many lenders in these markets may often obtain multiple authorizations to withdraw account funds through different channels, exercise those authorizations in ways that consumers do not expect, and repeatedly re-present returned payments in ways that can substantially increase costs to consumers and endanger their accounts.

In addition to proposing in § 1041.14 to prohibit lenders from attempting to withdraw payment from a consumer's account after two consecutive payment attempts have failed, unless the lender obtains the consumer's new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals, the Bureau is proposing in § 1041.15 to use its authority under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act to require two new disclosures to help consumers better understand and mitigate the costs and risks relating to payment presentment practices in connection with covered loans. While the interventions in § 1041.14 are designed to protect consumers who are already experiencing severe financial distress in connection with their loans and depository accounts, the primary intervention in § 1041.15 is designed to give all covered loan borrowers who grant authorizations for payment withdrawals the information they need to prepare for upcoming payments and to take proactive steps to manage any errors or disputes before funds are deducted from their accounts.

Specifically, proposed § 1041.15(b) would require lenders to provide consumers with a payment notice before initiating each payment transfer on a covered loan. This notice is designed to alert consumers to the timing, amount, and channel of the forthcoming payment transfer and to provide consumers with certain other basic information about the payment transfer. If the payment transfer would be for a different amount, at a different time, through a different payment channel than the consumer might have expected based upon past practice, or for the purpose of re-initiating a returned transfer, the notice would specifically alert the consumer to the change. For situations when a lender obtains consumer consent to deliver the payment notice through electronic means, proposed § 1041.15(c) would provide content requirements for an electronic short notice, which would be a truncated version of the payment notice formatted for electronic delivery through email, text message, or mobile application.

In addition, proposed § 1041.15(d) would complement the intervention in § 1041.14 by requiring lenders to provide a consumer rights notice after a lender has triggered the limitations in that section. This consumer rights notice would inform consumers that a lender has triggered the provisions in proposed § 1041.14 and is no longer permitted to initiate payment from the consumer's account unless the consumer chooses to provide a new authorization. The Bureau believes informing consumers of the past failed payments and the lender's inability to initiate further withdrawals would help prevent consumer confusion or misinformation and help consumers make an informed decision going forward on whether and how to grant a new authorization to permit further withdrawal attempts. For lenders to deliver the consumer rights notice required under proposed § 1041.15(d) through an electronic delivery method, proposed § 1041.15(e) would require the lenders to provide an electronic short notice that contains a link to the full consumer rights notice.

Under the proposal, lenders would be able to provide these notices by mail, in person or, with consumer consent, through electronic delivery methods such as email, text message, or mobile application. As discussed further below, the Bureau is seeking to facilitate electronic delivery of the notices wherever practicable because it believes that such methods would make the disclosures more timely, more effective, and less expensive for all parties. However, the Bureau believes it is also important to ensure that consumers without electronic access would receive the benefits of the disclosures. Given that electronic delivery may be the most timely and convenient method of delivery for many consumers, the Bureau believes that facilitating electronic delivery is consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product are “fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed” to consumers.

The Bureau is proposing model clauses and forms in proposed § 1041.15(a)(7). These proposed model clauses and forms could be used at the option of covered persons for the provision of the notices that would be required under proposed § 1041.15. The proposed model clauses and forms are located in appendix A. These proposed model clauses and forms were validated through two rounds of consumer testing in the fall of 2015. The consumer testing results are provided in the FMG Report.

Legal Authority

The payment notice, consumer rights notice, and short electronic notices in proposed § 1041.15 are being proposed under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which authorizes the Bureau to prescribe rules to ensure that the features of consumer financial products and services “both initially and over the term of the product or service,” are disclosed “fully, accurately, and effectively” in a way that “permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service, in light of the facts and circumstances.” The authority granted to the Bureau in section 1032(a) is broad, and empowers the Bureau to prescribe rules regarding the disclosure of the “features” of consumer financial products and services generally. Accordingly, the Bureau may prescribe rules containing disclosure requirements even if other Federal consumer financial laws do not specifically require disclosure of such features.

Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(c) provides that, in prescribing rules pursuant to section 1032, the Bureau “shall consider available evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services.” Accordingly, in developing the proposed rule under Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(a), the Bureau has considered consumer complaints, industry disclosure practices, and other evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services. The Bureau has also considered the evidence developed through its consumer testing as discussed in Market Concerns—Payments and in the FMG Report.

Section 1032(b)(1) also provides that “any final rule prescribed by the Bureau under this [section 1032] requiring disclosures may include a model form that may be used at the option of the covered person for provision of the required disclosures.” Any model form issued pursuant to this authority shall contain a clear and conspicuous disclosure that, at a minimum, uses plain language that is comprehensible to consumers, contains a clear format and design, such as an easily readable type font, and succinctly explains the information that must be communicated to the consumer. Section 1032(b)(2) provides that any model form the Bureau issues pursuant to section 1032(b) shall be validated through consumer testing. The Bureau conducted two rounds of qualitative consumer testing in September and October of 2015. The testing results are provided in the FMG Report. Section 1032(d) provides that “any covered person that uses a model form included with a rule issued under this [section 1032] shall be deemed to be in compliance with the disclosure requirements of this section with respect to such model form.”

15(a) General Form of Disclosures

Proposed section § 1041.15(a) would establish basic rules regarding the format and delivery for all notices required under § 1041.15 and establish requirements for a two-step process for the delivery of electronic disclosures as further required under proposed § 1041.15(c) and (e). The format requirements generally parallel the format requirements for other disclosures related certain covered short-term loans as provided in proposed § 1041.7, as discussed above, except that § 1041.15(a) would permit certain disclosures by text message or mobile application while proposed § 1041.7 would not. Here, the two-step electronic delivery process would involve delivery of short-form disclosures to consumers by text message, mobile application, or email that would contain a unique Web site address for the consumer to access the full notices required under proposed § 1041.15(b) for each upcoming withdrawal attempt and under proposed § 1041.15(d) where the lender's two consecutive failed withdrawal attempts have triggered the protections of § 1041.14.

Because the disclosures in proposed § 1041.15 involve the initiation of one or more payment transfers in connection with existing loans, the Bureau believes, as discussed below, that electronic disclosures would generally be more timely, more effective, and less expensive for consumers and lenders than paper notices. At the same time, the Bureau recognizes that there are technical and practical challenges with regard to electronic channels. The two-stage process is designed to balance such considerations, for instance by adapting the notices in light of format and length limitations on text message and by accommodating the preferences of consumers who are using mobile devices in the course of daily activities and would rather wait to access the full contents until a time and place of their choosing. The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of its approach to the form of disclosures and in particular to electronic delivery of the notices, as discussed further below.

15(a)(1) Clear and Conspicuous

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(1) would provide that the disclosures required by proposed § 1041.15 must be clear and conspicuous. The section would further provide that the disclosures may use commonly accepted or readily understandable abbreviations. Proposed comment 15(a)(1)-1 clarifies that disclosures are clear and conspicuous if they are readily understandable and their location and type size are readily noticeable to consumers. This clear and conspicuous standard is based on the standard used in other consumer financial services laws and their implementing regulations, including Regulation E subpart B § 1005.31(a)(1). Requiring that the disclosures be provided in a clear and conspicuous manner would help consumers understand the information in the disclosure about the costs, benefits, and risks of the transfer, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Bureau seeks comment on the appropriateness of proposing this general standard and whether additional guidance would be useful in the context of these specific disclosures, particularly including its applicability to electronic delivery on mobile devices.

15(a)(2) In Writing or Electronic Delivery

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(2) would require disclosures mandated by proposed § 1041.15 to be provided in writing or through electronic delivery. The disclosures could be provided through electronic delivery as long as the requirements of proposed paragraph 15(a)(4) are satisfied. The disclosures must be provided in a form that can be viewed on paper or a screen, as applicable. The requirement in proposed § 1041.15(a)(2) could not be satisfied by being provided orally or through a recorded message. Proposed comment 15(a)(2) explains that the disclosures that would be required by proposed § 1041.15 may be provided electronically as long as the requirements of § 1041.15(a)(4) are satisfied, without regard to the E-Sign Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

The Bureau is proposing to allow electronic delivery because electronic communications are more convenient than paper communications for some lenders and consumers. The Bureau has therefore proposed a tailored regime that it believes would encourage lenders and consumers to identify an appropriate method of electronic delivery where consumers have electronic access.

The Bureau understands that some lenders already contact their borrowers through electronic means such as text message and email. Lenders that currently provide electronic notices have informed the Bureau that they provide both email and text message as communication options to consumers. A major trade association for online lenders reported that many of its members automatically enroll consumers in an email notification system as part of the origination process but allow consumers to opt in to receive text message notifications of upcoming payments. One member of this association asserted that approximately 95 percent of consumers opt in to text message notifications, so email effectively functions as a back-up delivery method. Similarly, during the Bureau's SBREFA process a SER from an online-only lender reported that 80 percent of its customers opt in to text message notifications. According to a major payday, payday installment, and vehicle title lender that offers loans through storefronts and the internet, 95 percent of its customers have access to the internet and 70 percent have a home computer. Lenders may prefer contacting consumers through these methods given that they are typically less costly than mailing a paper notice. Given the convenience and timeliness of electronic notices, the disclosure information may provide the most utility to consumers when it is provided through electronic methods.

The Bureau believes that providing consumers with disclosures that they can view and retain would allow them to more easily understand the information, detect errors, and determine whether the payment is consistent with their expectations. Given the detailed nature of the information provided in the disclosures required by proposed § 1041.15, including payment amount, loan balance, failed payment amounts, consumer rights, and various dates, the Bureau believes that oral disclosures would not provide consumers with a sufficient opportunity to understand and use the disclosure information.

The Bureau seeks comment on the benefits and risks to consumers of providing these disclosures through electronic delivery. The Bureau requests comment on the electronic delivery requirements in proposed § 1041.15(a)(2), including the extent that they protect consumers' interests, whether they appropriately encourage electronic delivery, and whether they should incorporate specific elements of the E-Sign Act. For circumstances when lenders deliver the notices required by § 1041.15 through electronic delivery in accordance with the requirements in proposed § 1041.15(a)(4), the Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether lenders should be required to format the full notice so that it is viewable across all screen sizes. The Bureau seeks comment on the burdens and benefits of providing the notice in form that responds to the screen size it is being viewed on while still meeting the other formatting and content provisions proposed in § 1041.15. The Bureau also seeks comment on situations where consumers would be provided with a paper notice. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on the burdens of providing these notices through paper, the utility of paper notices to consumers, and additional ways that this provision can encourage electronic delivery.

15(a)(3) Retainable

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(3) would require disclosures mandated by proposed § 1041.15 to be provided in a retainable form, except for the electronic short notices under § 1041.15(c) or (e) that are delivered through mobile application or text message and explained below. Electronic short notices provided by email would still be subject to the retainability requirement. Proposed comment 15(a)(3) explains that electronic notices are considered retainable if they are in a format that is capable of being printed, saved, or emailed by the consumer.

Having the disclosures in a retainable format would enable consumers to refer to the disclosure at a later point in time, such as after a payment has posted to their account or if they contact the lender with a question, allowing the disclosures to more effectively disclose the features of the product to consumers. The Bureau is not proposing to require that text messages and messages within mobile applications be permanently retainable because of concerns that technical limitations beyond the lender's control may make retention difficult. However, the Bureau anticipates that such messages would often be kept on a consumer's device for a considerable period of time and could therefore be accessed again. In addition, proposed § 1041.15 would require that such messages contain a link to a Web site containing a full notice that would be subject to the general rule under proposed § 1041.15(a)(3) regarding retainability. A lender would also be required to maintain policies, procedures, and records to ensure compliance with the notice requirement under proposed § 1041.18.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether to allow for an exception to the requirement that notices be retainable for text messages and messages within mobile applications and whether other requirements should be placed on these delivery methods, such as a requirement that the URL link stay active for certain period of time. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether the notices should warn consumers that they should save or print the full notice given that URL link will not be maintained indefinitely.

15(a)(4) Electronic Delivery

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(4) would contain various requirements that are designed to facilitate delivery of the notices required under proposed § 1041.15 through electronic channels, while appropriately balancing concerns about consumer consent, technology access, and preferences for different modes of electronic communication. As detailed further below, the proposed rule would provide that disclosures may be provided through electronic delivery if the consumer affirmatively consents in writing or electronically to the particular electronic delivery method. Lenders may obtain this consent in writing or electronically. The proposed rule would require that lenders provide email as an electronic delivery option if they also offer options to deliver notices through text message or mobile application. Proposed § 1041.15(a)(4) would also set forth rules to govern situations where the consumer revokes consent for delivery through a particular electronic channel or is otherwise unable to receive notices through that channel.

15(a)(4)(i) Consumer Consent

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(4)(i) would specify the consumer consent requirements for provision of the disclosures through electronic delivery. Proposed § 1041.15(a)(4)(i)(A) would require lenders to obtain a consumer's affirmative consent to receive the disclosures through a particular method of electronic delivery. These methods might include email, text message, or mobile application. The Bureau believes it is important for consumers to be able to choose a method of delivery to which they have access and that will best facilitate their use of the disclosures, and that viewable documentation would facilitate both informed consumer choice and supervision of lender compliance. The Bureau is concerned that consumers could receive disclosures through a method that they do not prefer or that is not useful to them if they are automatically defaulted into an electronic delivery method. Similarly, the Bureau is concerned that a consumer may receive disclosures through a method that they do not expect if they are provided with a broad electronic delivery option rather than an option that specifies the method of electronic delivery.

The Bureau requests comment on this proposed affirmative consent requirement. The Bureau is aware that during the origination process lenders obtain consumer consent for other terms, such as authorization for preauthorized electronic fund transfers under Regulation E § 1005.10(b), and seeks comment on whether obtaining consumer consent to electronic delivery in writing or electronically would introduce any significant marginal burden. The Bureau seeks comment on whether lenders should be permitted to obtain consent orally.

15(a)(4)(i)(B) Email Option Required

Proposed § 1041.15(4)(i)(B) would require that when obtaining consumer consent to electronic delivery, a lender must provide the consumer with the option to select email as the method of electronic delivery, separate and apart from any other electronic delivery methods such as mobile application or text message. Proposed comment 15(a)(4)(i)(B) explains that the lender may choose to offer email as the only method of electronic delivery.

The Bureau believes that such an approach would facilitate consumers' choice of the electronic delivery channel that is most beneficial to them, in light of differences in access, use, and cost structures between channels. For many consumers, delivery via text message or mobile application may be the most convenient and timely option. However, there are some potential tradeoffs. For example, consumers may incur costs when receiving text messages and may have privacy concerns about finance-related text messages appearing on their mobile phones. During consumer testing, some of the participants had a negative reaction to receiving notices by text message. These negative reactions included privacy concerns about someone being able to see that they were receiving a notice related to a financial matter when it came in the form of a text message. The Bureau believes that mobile application messages may create similar privacy concerns since such messages may generate alerts or banners on a consumer's mobile device.

However, the Bureau believes that receiving notices by text message may be useful to some consumers. In general, most consumers have access to a mobile phone. According to a recent Federal Reserve study on mobile banking and financial services, approximately 90 percent of “underbanked” consumers—consumers who have bank accounts but use non-bank products like payday loans—have access to a mobile phone. Fewer underbanked consumer have a phone with Internet access, although the coverage is still significant at 73 percent. A few participants in the Bureau's consumer testing indicated a preference for receiving notices by text message. The Bureau believes that text message delivery should be allowed as long as consumers have the option to choose email delivery, which for some consumers may be a strongly preferred method of disclosure delivery. The Bureau believes that requiring an email option may help ensure that the disclosure information is effectively disclosed to consumers, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposed email requirement, including the relative burden on lenders of delivering notices through email in comparison to other methods such as text message and paper mail. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether it should require lenders to use free-to-end-user text messages if text messaging is provided as an option and selected by consumers.

15(a)(4)(ii) Subsequent Loss of Consent

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(4)(ii) would prohibit a lender from providing the notices required by proposed § 1041.15 through a particular electronic delivery method if there is subsequent loss of consent as provided in proposed § 1041.15(a)(4)(ii), either because the consumer revokes consent pursuant to proposed § 1041.15(a)(4)(ii)(A) or the lender receives notification that the consumer is unable to receive disclosures through a particular method as described in proposed § 1041.15(a)(4)(ii)(B). Proposed comment 15(a)(4)(ii)(B)-1 explains that the prohibition applies to each particular electronic delivery method. It provides that when a lender loses a consumer's consent to receive disclosures via text message, for example, but has not lost the consumer's consent to receive disclosures via email, the lender may continue to provide disclosures via email, assuming that all of the requirements in proposed § 1041.15(a)(4) are satisfied. Proposed comment 15(a)(4)(ii)(B)-2 clarifies that the loss of consent applies to all notices required under proposed § 1041.15. For example, if a consumer revokes consent in response to the electronic short notice text message delivered along with the payment notice under proposed § 1041.15(c), that revocation also would apply to text message delivery of the electronic short notice that would be delivered with the consumer rights notice under proposed § 1041.15(e) or to delivery of the notice under proposed § 1041.15(d) if there are two consecutive failed withdrawal attempts that trigger the protections of § 1041.14.

15(a)(4)(ii)(A)

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(4)(ii)(A) would prohibit a lender from providing the notices required by proposed § 1041.15 through a particular electronic delivery method if the consumer revokes consent to receive electronic disclosures through that method. Proposed comment 15(a)(4)(ii)(A)-1 clarifies that a consumer may revoke consent for any reason and by any reasonable means of communication. The comment provides that examples of a reasonable means of communication include calling the lender and revoking consent orally, mailing a revocation to an address provided by the lender on its consumer correspondence, sending an email response or clicking on a revocation link provided in an email from the lender, and responding to a text message sent by the lender.

The Bureau is aware that burdensome revocation requirements could make it difficult for the consumer to revoke consent to receive electronic disclosures through a particular electronic delivery method. Accordingly, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to require that consent is revoked and lenders cannot provide the notices through a particular electronic delivery method if the consumer revokes consent through that method. The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of this revocation requirement and on whether additional safeguards or clarifications would be useful. The Bureau seeks comment on whether certain methods of revocation are particularly burdensome for lenders to receive and whether the Bureau should further limit methods of revocation, and whether certain methods of revocation are particularly valuable to consumers.

15(a)(4)(ii)(B)

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(4)(ii)(B) would prohibit a lender from providing the notices required by proposed § 1041.15 through a particular electronic delivery method if the lender receives notice that the consumer is unable to receive disclosures through that method. Such notice would be treated in the same manner as if the consumer had affirmatively notified the lender that the consumer was revoking authorization to provide notices through that means of delivery. Proposed comment 15(a)(4)(ii)(B)-1 provides examples of notice, including a returned email, returned text message, and statement from the consumer.

The Bureau believes that this is an important safeguard to ensure that consumers have ongoing access to the notices required under proposed § 1041.15. This requirement to change delivery methods after consent has been lost helps ensure that the disclosure information is fully and effectively disclosed to consumers, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032. As discussed further below, in the event that the lender receives such a notice, it would be required under proposed § 1041.15(b)(3) to deliver notices for any future payment attempts through alternate means, such as another method of electronic delivery that the consumer has consented to, in person delivery, or paper mail. The Bureau requests comment on this loss of consent provision, including whether there are other methods of loss of consent that should be discussed in the rule, and how frequently lenders who use electronic communication methods today receive such returns.

15(a)(5) Segregation Requirements for Notices

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(5) would provide that all notices required by proposed § 1041.15 must be segregated from all other written materials and contain only the information required by § 1041.15, other than information necessary for product identification, branding, and navigation. Segregated additional content that is not required by proposed § 1041.15 must not be displayed above, below, or around the required content. Proposed comment 15(a)(5)-1 clarifies that additional, non-required content may be delivered through a separate form, such as a separate piece of paper or Web page.

In order to increase the likelihood that consumers would notice and read the written and electronic disclosures required by proposed § 1041.15, the Bureau is proposing that the notices should be provided in a stand-alone format that is segregated from other lender communications. This requirement would ensure that the disclosure contents are effectively disclosed to consumers, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Lenders would not be allowed to add additional substantive content to the disclosure. The Bureau solicits comment on these segregation requirements, including whether they provide enough specificity.

15(a)(6) Machine Readable Text in Notices Provided Through Electronic Delivery

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(5) would require, if provided through electronic delivery, that the payment notice required by proposed § 1041.15 (b) and the consumer rights notice required by proposed § 1041.15(d) must use machine readable text that is accessible via both Web browsers and screen readers. Graphical representations of textual content cannot be accessed by assistive technology used by the blind and visually impaired. The Bureau believes that providing the electronically-delivered disclosures with machine readable text, rather than as a graphic image file, would help ensure that consumers with a variety of electronic devices and consumers that utilize screen readers, such as consumers with disabilities, can access the disclosure information. The Bureau seeks comment on this requirement, including its benefits to consumers, the burden it would impose on lenders, and on how lenders currently format content delivered through a Web page.

15(a)(7) Model Forms

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(7) would require all notices in proposed § 1041.15 to be substantially similar to the model forms and clauses proposed by the Bureau. Proposed comment 15(a)(7)-1 explains the safe harbor provided by the model forms, providing that although the use of the model forms and clauses is not required, lenders using them would be deemed to be in compliance with the disclosure requirement with respect to such model forms. Proposed § 1041.15(a)(7)(i) would require that the content, order, and format of the payment notice be substantially similar to the Models Forms A-3 through A-5 in appendix A. Under proposed § 1041.15(a)(7)(ii), the consumer rights notice would have to be substantially similar to Model Form A-5 in appendix A. Similarly, proposed § 1041.15(a)(7)(iii) would mandate that the electronic short notices required under proposed § 1041.15(c) and (e) must be substantially similar to the Model Clauses A-6 through A-8 provided in appendix A.

The model forms developed through consumer testing may make the notice information comprehensible to consumers while minimizing the burden on lenders who otherwise would need to develop their own disclosures. Consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032(b)(1), the Bureau believes that its proposed model forms use plain language comprehensible to consumers, contain a clear format and design, such as an easily readable type font, and succinctly explain the information that much be communicated to the consumer. As described in the FMG Report, and as discussed above, the Bureau has considered evidence developed through its testing of model forms pursuant to section 1032(b)(3). The Bureau believes that providing these model forms would help ensure that the disclosures are effectively provided to consumers, while also leaving space for lenders to adapt the disclosures to their loan products and preferences. The Bureau seeks comment on the content, format, and design of these model forms.

15(a)(8) Foreign Language Disclosures

Proposed § 1041.15(a)(8) would allow lenders to provide the disclosures required by proposed § 1041.15 in a language other than English, provided that the disclosures are made available in English upon the consumer's request.

The Bureau seeks comment in general on this foreign language requirement, including whether lenders should be required to obtain written consumer consent before for sending the disclosures in proposed § 1041.15 in a language other than English and whether lenders should be required to provide the disclosure in English along with the foreign language disclosure. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether there are any circumstances in which lenders should be required to provide the disclosures in a foreign language and, if so, what circumstance should trigger such a requirement.

15(b) Payment Notice

Proposed § 1041.15(b) would generally require that lenders provide to consumers a payment notice before initiating a payment transfer from a consumer's account with respect to a covered loan, other than loans made pursuant to proposed § 1041.11 and proposed § 1041.12. As defined in proposed § 1041.14(a), a payment transfer is any transfer of funds from a consumer's account that is initiated by a lender for the purpose of collecting any amount due or purported to be due in connection with a covered loan. The notice would contain special wording alerting the consumer when the upcoming withdrawal would involve changes in amount, timing, or channel from what the consumer would otherwise be expecting. The timing requirements would vary depending on the method of delivery, with the earliest date being six to 10 business days prior to the intended withdrawal for notices delivered by mail.

As discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, when a lender initiates a payment transfer for which the consumer's account lacks sufficient funds, the consumer can suffer a number of adverse consequences. The consumer's bank will likely charge an overdraft or NSF fee. If the payment is returned, the lender may also charge a returned payment or late fee. These fees can materially increase the amount the consumer is required to pay. Moreover, returned payments appear to increase the likelihood that the consumer's account will be closed.

The Bureau believes that the payment notice could help consumers mitigate these various harms by providing a timely reminder that a payment transfer will occur, the amount and expected allocation of the payment as between principal and other costs, and information consumers may need to follow up with lenders or their depository institutions if there is a problem with the upcoming withdrawal or if the consumer anticipates difficulty in covering the payment transfer.

The Bureau believes that the notice could have value as a general financial management tool, but would be particularly valuable to consumers in situations in which lenders intend to initiate a withdrawal in a way that deviates from the loan agreement or prior course of conduct between the parties. As detailed above, the Bureau is aware that some lenders making covered loans sometimes initiate payments in an unpredictable manner which may increase the likelihood that consumers will experience adverse consequences. Consumers have limited ability to control when or how lenders will initiate payment. Although paper checks specify a date and amount for payment, UCC Section 4-401(c) allows merchants to present checks for payment on a date earlier than the date on the check. Lenders sometimes attempt to collect payment on a different day from the one stated on a payment schedule. The Bureau has received complaints from consumers that have incurred bank account fees after payday and payday installment lenders attempted to collect payment on a different date from what was scheduled. The Bureau is also aware that lenders sometimes split payments into multiple pieces, make multiple attempts to collect in one day, add fees and charges to the payment amount, and change the payment method used to collect.

The Bureau is aware that these notices would impose some cost on lenders, particularly the payment notice which, under proposed § 1041.15(c), would be sent before each payment transfer. The Bureau considered proposing to require the payment notice only when the payment transfer would qualify as unusual, such as when there is a change in the amount, date, or payment channel. However, the Bureau believes that once lenders have built the infrastructure to send the unusual payment notices, the marginal costs of sending notices for all upcoming payments is likely to be relatively minimal. The Bureau notes that a number of lenders already have a similar infrastructure for sending payment reminders. Indeed, a trade association representing online payday and payday installment lenders has expressed support for upcoming payment reminders. These lenders currently may choose to send out payment reminders before all payments initiated from a consumer's account. Others may be sending out notices for preauthorized electronic fund transfers that vary in amount in accordance with Regulation E § 1005.10(d), which requires payees to send a notice of date and amount ten days before a transfer that varies in amount from the previous transfer under the same authorization or from the preauthorized amount.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether the payment notice could be provided in another manner that would address the policy concerns discussed in this section. The Small Business Review Panel Report also recommended that the Bureau solicit feedback on whether there were ways to address the Bureau's policy concerns without requiring an upcoming payment disclosure before payment transfers that are consistent with the date and amount authorized by the consumer. The Bureau seeks comment on both the incremental burden and incremental benefit of providing the payment notice before all upcoming payment transfers, rather than just before unusual attempts. The Bureau also seeks comment on the extent lenders currently have the infrastructure to provide notices through text message, email, mobile application, and by mail. The Bureau invites comment on how lenders currently comply with the Regulation E requirement to provide notice of transfers varying in amount, including whether most lenders obtain authorizations for a wide range of amounts with the result of sending notices only when a transfer falls outside a specified range or only when a transfer differs from the most recent transfer by more than an agreed-upon amount and whether consumers are informed of their right to receive this notice in accordance with Regulation E § 1005.10(d)(2).

The Bureau also invites comment on the burdens and benefits from regular versus unusual notices. The Bureau particularly seeks comment on whether there would be some risk of desensitizing consumers to the notice by sending a version of it in connection with routine payments. Given this potential desensitization and that some consumers may prefer not to receive these regular upcoming payment notices, particularly for long-term loans that require many payment transfers, the Bureau seeks comment on whether this notice should provide a method for consumers to opt-out of receiving future upcoming payment notices. The Bureau also seeks comment on the burdens and benefits of providing a payment notice for a loan which is scheduled to be repaid in a single-payment due shortly after the loan is consummated, such as a two-week payday loan.

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(1) would set forth the basic disclosure requirement, while proposed § 1041.15(b)(2) would provide exceptions. Proposed § 1041.15(b)(3) would define timing requirements for this payment notice, including mailing paper notices 10 to six business days before initiating the payment transfer and sending notices by electronic delivery seven to three business days before initiating the transfer. Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4) would define content requirements for this payment notice, including transfer terms and payment breakdown. Proposed § 1041.15(b)(5) would provide additional content requirements for unusual payment transfers, including a statement describing why the transfer is unusual. Proposed § 1041.15(c) would provide content requirements for the electronic short form, which is required in situations where the lender is providing this payment notice through a method of electronic delivery.

15(b)(1) General

Except as provided in proposed § 1041.15(b)(2), proposed § 1041.15(b)(1) would require lenders to send a payment notice to a consumer prior to initiating a payment transfer from the consumer's account.

15(b)(2) Exceptions

15(b)(2)(i)

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(2)(i) would except covered loans made pursuant to proposed § 1041.11 or proposed § 1041.12 from the payment notice requirement. The Bureau has limited evidence that lenders making payday alternative loans like those covered by § 1041.11 participate in questionable payment practices. Given the cost restrictions placed by the NCUA on payday alternative loans and on the loans conditionally exempt under proposed § 1041.12, it may be particularly difficult to build the cost of providing the payment disclosure into the cost of the loan. The Bureau is concerned that lenders may be unable to continue offering payday alternative loans or the loans encompassed by proposed § 1041.12 if the disclosure requirement is applied.

The Bureau seeks comment on these proposed exceptions. The Bureau invites comment on whether lenders currently offering payday alternative loans or relationship loans of the type covered by proposed § 1041.12 already provide a payment reminder to consumers and whether such an exception is necessary.

15(b)(2)(ii)

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(2)(ii) would provide a limited exception to the notice requirement for the first transfer from a consumer's account after the lender obtains the consumer's consent pursuant to proposed § 1041.14(c), regardless of whether any of the conditions in § 1041.15(b)(5) apply. As discussed above, proposed § 1041.14 would generally require a lender to obtain a consumer's consent before initiating another payment attempt on the consumer's account after two consecutive attempts have failed. Proposed § 1041.15(b)(2)(ii) would allow lenders to forgo the payment notice for the first payment attempt made under the consumer's affirmative consent as the consent itself will function like a payment notice. Proposed comment 15(b)(2)(ii)-1 clarifies that this exception applies even if the transfer would otherwise trigger the additional disclosure requirements for unusual attempts under proposed § 1041.15(b)(5). Proposed comment 15(b)(2)(ii)-2 explains that, when a consumer has affirmatively consented to multiple transfers in advance, this exception applies only to the first transfer.

Because the lender must provide precise information about the payment to be deducted from the account prior to obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent, the Bureau believes requiring a payment notice before executing the first funds transfer that the consumer has consented to would generally be unnecessary. This exception would apply only to the first transfer made under the consumer's new and specific consent in order to ensure that after the first payment, the consumer receives the benefits of the payment notices to minimize the risk that a payment transfer will adversely impact the consumer. This is especially important if the first attempt fails, so that the consumer has notice of the means by which the lender may attempt a second funds transfer.

The Bureau seeks comment on this proposed exception, including whether the exception is necessary and whether other exceptions might be appropriate for situations where the consumer has provided affirmative consent. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether this exception should not apply if fee has been added to the scheduled payment amount, or if the payment is otherwise for a varying amount as provided under proposed § 1041.15(b)(5)(i).

15(b)(2)(iii)

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(2)(iii) would provide an exception for an immediate single payment transfer initiated at the consumer's request as defined in § 1041.14(a)(5). This exception would carve out situations where a lender is initiating a transfer within one business day of receiving the consumer's authorization.

During the SBREFA process and other external outreach, lenders raised concerns about how the Bureau's potential proposal would apply to one-time, immediate electronic payments made at the consumer's request. Industry has expressed concern that, unless these payments are excepted from the requirement, lenders could be prohibited from deducting payments from consumers' accounts for several days in situations in which consumers have specifically directed the lender to deduct an extra payment or have given approval to pay off their loans early. Similarly, if an advance notice were required before a one-time payment, consumers attempting to make a last-minute payment might incur additional late fees due to the waiting period required after the disclosure. The Bureau believes that these are valid policy concerns and accordingly is proposing to except an immediate single payment transfer made at the consumer's request. The Bureau also believes that because this category of payments involves situations in which the consumer's affirmative request to initiate a transfer is processed within a business day of receiving the request, the consumer is unlikely to be surprised or unprepared for the subsequent withdrawal. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposed exception. In particular, the Bureau invites comment on whether this proposed exception is too broad and includes some transfers that should be subject to the payment disclosure.

15(b)(3) Timing

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(3) would provide the tailored timing requirements applicable to each of the three methods through which the payment notice can be delivered, which are mail, electronic, and in-person delivery. The minimum time to deliver the notice would range from six to three business days before the transfer, depending on the channel.

In proposing these requirements, the Bureau is balancing several competing considerations about how timing may impact consumers and lenders. First, the Bureau believes that the payment notice information is more likely to be useful, actionable, and effective for consumers if it is provided shortly before the payment will be initiated. Consumers could use this information to assess whether there are sufficient funds in their account to cover the payment and whether they need to make arrangements for another bill or obligation that is due around the same time. However, consumers also may need some time to arrange their finances, to discuss alternative arrangements with the lender, or to resolve any errors. For example, if the payment were not authorized and the consumer wanted to provide a notice to stop payment to their account provider in a timely fashion under Regulation E § 1005.10(c)(1), the regulation would require the consumer to take action three business days before the scheduled date of the transfer.

The Bureau is also aware that the delay between sending and receiving the notice complicates timing considerations. For example, paper delivery via mail involves a lag time of a few days and is difficult to estimate precisely. Finally, as discussed above, the Bureau believes that electronic delivery may be the least costly and most reliable method of delivery for many consumers and lenders. However, some consumers do not have access to an electronic means of receiving notices, so a paper option would be the only way for these consumers to receive the notices required under proposed § 1041.15(b). In light of these considerations, the Bureau believes that these timing requirements, which incorporate the delays inherent in various methods of delivery and the utility of the disclosure information for consumers, would help ensure that the content of the payment notice is effectively disclosed to consumers, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed timing of the payment notice for each delivery method specified below and whether other delivery methods should be considered. The Bureau invites comment on whether the payment notice should be required to be delivered within a timeframe that allows consumers additional time to utilize their Regulation E stop payment rights if they choose to do so, such as a requirement to send the payment notice through electronic delivery no later than five days before the payment will be initiated, or whether the benefit of extra time would be outweighed by having consumers receive the notice relatively close to the payment date. The Bureau seeks comment on whether an earlier timeframe should be provided for notices delivered by mail, such as a timeframe of 8 to 12 days, to accommodate mail delays. The Bureau also invites comment on whether synchronizing the timing requirement for proposed § 1041.15(b)(3) with Regulation E § 1005.10(d) requirement that notice of transfers of varying amounts be delivered at least 10 days before the transfer date would ease compliance burden on lenders.

15(b)(3)(i) Mail

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(3)(i) would require the lender to mail the notice no earlier than 10 business days and no later than six business days prior to initiating the transfer. Proposed comment 15(b)(3)(i)-1 clarifies that the six-business-day period begins when the lender places the notice in the mail, rather than when the consumer receives the notice.

For a payment notice sent by mail, there may be a gap of a few days between when the lender sends the notice and when the consumer receives it. The Bureau expects that in most cases this would result in the consumer receiving the notice between seven business days and three business days prior to the date on which the lender intends to initiate the transfer. This expectation is consistent with certain provisions of Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, which assume that consumers are considered to have received disclosures delivered by mail three business days after they are placed in the mail.

15(b)(3)(ii) Electronic Delivery

For a payment notice sent through electronic delivery along with the electronic short notice in proposed § 1041.15(c), consumers would be able to receive a notice immediately after it is sent and without the lag inherent in paper mail. Proposed § 1041.15(b)(3)(ii)(A) would therefore adjust the time frames and require the lender to send the notice no earlier than seven business days and no later than three business days prior to initiating the transfer. Proposed comment 15(b)(3)(ii)(A)-1 clarifies that the three-business-day period begins when the lender sends the notice, rather than when the consumer receives or is deemed to have received the notice.

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(3)(ii)(B) would require that if, after providing the payment notice through electronic delivery pursuant to the timing requirements in proposed § 1041.15(b)(3)(ii)(A), the lender loses a consumer's consent to receive notices through a particular electronic delivery method, the lender must provide the notice for any future payment attempt, if applicable, through alternate means. Proposed comment 15(b)(3)(ii)(B)-1 clarifies that in circumstances when the lender receives the consumer's loss of consent for a particular electronic delivery method after the notice has already been provided, the lender may initiate the payment transfer as scheduled. If the lender is scheduled to make any payment attempts following the one that was disclosed in the previously provided notice, the lender must provide notice for that future payday attempt through alternate means, in accordance with the applicable timing requirements in proposed § 1041.15(b)(3). Proposed comment 15(b)(3)(ii)(B)-2 explains that alternate means may include a different electronic delivery method that the consumer has consented to, in person, or by mail. Proposed comment 15(b)(3)(ii)(B)-3 provides examples of actions that would satisfy the proposed requirements in proposed § 1041.15(b)(3)(ii)(B).

The Bureau is concerned that requiring lenders to delay the payment transfer past its scheduled date could cause consumers to incur late fees and finance charges. For example, if the lender attempts to deliver a notice through text message three days before the transfer date and the lender receives a response indicating that the consumer's phone number is out of service, the lender would not have sufficient time before the scheduled payment transfer date to deliver to payment notice by mail according to the timing requirements in proposed § 1041.15(b)(3)(i). Although it would be preferable that consumers received the notice before any transfer in all circumstances, on balance the Bureau believes that the potential harms of causing payment delays outweighs the benefits of requiring that the notice be delivered through another method. The Bureau is concerned that even if lenders were required to deliver the notice through another means, such as mail, that alternative means also may not successfully deliver the notice to the consumer. The Bureau seeks comment on this approach, which would allow lenders to initiate a payment transfer as scheduled in situations when the lender learns of revocation or loss of consent for a particular electronic delivery method after the notice has already been provided. The Bureau also seeks comment on alternative approaches to this payment transfer delay issue.

15(b)(3)(iii) In Person

If a lender provides the payment notice in person, there would be no lag between providing the notice and the consumer's receipt. Similar to the timing provisions provided for the electronic short notice, proposed § 1041.15(b)(3)(iii) would provide that if the lender provides the notice in person, the lender must provide the notice no earlier than seven business days and no later than three business days prior to initiating the transfer.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether a broader time window should be provided for in-person notices in order to accommodate short-term, single payment loans. The Bureau is aware that for loans with terms of less than two weeks the date of the payment transfer is not far from the origination date. The Bureau seeks comment on whether allowing an in-person notice to be provided up to 14 days before the payment transfer date would ease lender burden requirements and whether extending the time frame would decrease the benefit of the notice to consumers.

15(b)(4) Content Requirements

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4) would specify the required contents of the payment notice, including an identifying statement, date and amount of the transfer, truncated information to identify the consumer account from which the withdrawal will be taken, loan number, payment channel, check number (if applicable), the annual percentage rate of the loan, a breakdown of how the payment is applied to principal and fees, and lender contact information. When the payment transfer has changed in a manner that makes the attempt unusual, proposed § 1041.15(b)(4) would require the disclosure title to reflect that the attempt is unusual.

The Bureau believes that this content would enable consumers to understand the costs and risks associated with each loan payment, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau is aware that providing too much or overly complicated information on the notice may prevent consumers from reading and understanding the notice. To maximize the likelihood that consumers would read the notice and retain the most importance pieces of information about an upcoming payment, the Bureau believes that the content requirements should be minimal.

In particular, the Bureau considered adding information about other consumer rights, such as stop payment rights for checks and electronic fund transfers, but has concerns that this information may be complicated and distracting. Consumer rights regarding payments are particularly complicated because they vary across payment methods, loan contracts, and whether the authorization is for a one-time or recurring payment. As discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, these rights are often burdensome and costly for consumers to utilize.

The Bureau seeks comment on these content requirements as individually detailed below, in particular the inclusion of consumer account information, annual percentage rate or another measure of cost, and the manner of disclosing payment breakdown. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether the upcoming payment notice should advise consumers to notify their lender or financial institution immediately if the payment appears to have an error or be otherwise unauthorized. The Bureau also seeks comment about whether information about the CFPB should be required on the notice, such as a link to CFPB web content on payday loans.

15(b)(4)(i) Identifying Statement

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(i) would require an identifying statement to alert the consumer to the upcoming payment transfer, whether the transfer is unusual, and the name of the lender initiating the transfer. Specifically, proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(i)(A) would require, in situations that do not qualify as unusual according to proposed § 1041.15(b)(5), that the payment notice contain the identifying statement “Upcoming Withdrawal Notice,” using that phrase, and, in the same statement, the name of the lender. If the unusual attempt scenarios outlined in proposed § 1041.15(b)(5) apply, proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(i)(B) would require that the payment notice contain the identifying statement “Alert: Unusual Withdrawal,” using that phrase, and, in the same statement, the name of the lender. In both cases, the language would have to be substantially similar to the language provided in proposed Model Forms A-3 and A-4 in appendix A.

The Bureau believes that this basic information identifying the purpose of the notice and the lender providing the notice would avoid information overload, help show the legitimacy of the notice, and provide a strong motivation for consumers to read the disclosures. The Bureau seeks comment on whether other information is sufficiently critical to consumer awareness that it should be required in the heading.

15(b)(4)(ii) Transfer Terms

15(b)(4)(ii)(A) Date

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(ii)(A) would require the payment notice to include the date that the lender will initiate the transfer. Proposed comment 15(b)(4)(ii)(A)-1 clarifies that the initiation date is the date that the payment transfer is sent outside of the lender's control. Accordingly, the initiation date of the transfer is the date that the lender or its agent—such as a payment processor—sends the payment to be processed by a third party.

The Bureau realizes that different payment channels have different processing times, and that communications between parties in the chain can also affect timelines. On balance, the Bureau believes that notice of the date that the payment will be initiated would provide the consumer with the best reasonable and consistent estimate across different payment channels of the date by which the consumer must have funds in the account in order for the payment to go through and also would allow the consumer greater opportunity to mitigate potential harms from an unauthorized or unanticipated debit attempt from the consumer's account. The Bureau believes that, in general, lenders making covered loans initiate payments in accordance with the terms of the loans. In cases when lenders initiate payment in accordance with the terms of the loans, the notice would provide a valuable reminder that could enable the consumer to have funds available if the consumer is able to do so or to contact the lender to make alternative arrangements if the consumer would not be able to cover the payment.

At the same time, as discussed in Market Concerns—Payments, consumer complaints, Bureau analysis of online lender ACH payments and supervisory information show that some lenders may debit a consumer's account at irregular times resulting in early collection of funds, overdraft fees, or fees for returned payments. Lenders also may debit a consumer's account soon after an initial attempt fails—sometimes making multiple attempts over a short period of time—or months after the original payment attempt failed. Providing the date of the initiation in the payment notice would alert consumers when this occurs.

The Bureau solicits comment on requiring the lender to include the date that the lender will initiate the transfer in the notice and whether there is an alternative date that would be more useful for consumers and knowable to lenders. For example, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the lender should include in the notice the initiation date, the date the lender expects the payment transfer to reach the consumer's depository institution, or the earliest possible date that funds may be taken out of the consumer's account.

15(b)(4)(ii)(B) Amount

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(ii)(B) would require the payment notice to include the dollar amount of the transfer. Proposed comment 15(b)(4)(ii)(B)-1 explains that the amount of the transfer is the total amount of money that the lender will seek to transfer from the consumer's account, regardless of whether the total corresponds to the amount of a regularly scheduled payment.

The Bureau believes that disclosing the amount of the transfer would help consumers to arrange their finances, check for accuracy, and take action if there is an error. Consumers may not anticipate the amount of the payment. Consumers sometimes forget about recurring payments and preauthorized debits. Sometimes the consumer may not be able to anticipate the payment amount because the lender changes it unexpectedly, makes an error, or never received authorization. Many loan agreements provide the lender the right to collect payments for amounts that vary within a range authorized by the consumer. As discussed above in Market Concerns—Payments, Bureau analysis of online lender ACH payments, consumer complaints, enforcement actions, and publicly available data demonstrate that payment amounts on a single loan can fluctuate widely, with some lenders breaking down payments into small pieces, collecting a large amount with the addition of fees or other charges, or trying different amounts over a short period of time. Consumers need to know the amount of a payment transfer to assess whether the amount is erroneous or unauthorized and, if so, how best to respond, and to take any steps they can to ensure that sufficient funds are in the account. Given that banks typically require the consumer to identify an exact payment amount in order to place a stop payment order, these disclosing the exact amount of the payment transfer would enable consumers to understand the cost and take appropriate actions.

15(b)(4)(ii)(C) Consumer Account

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(ii)(C) would require the payment notice to include sufficient information to permit the consumer to identify the account from which the funds will be transferred, but, to address privacy concerns, would expressly prohibit the lender from providing the complete account number of the consumer. A truncated account number similar to the one used in Model Form A-3 in appendix A to proposed part 1041 would be permissible.

The Bureau believes that information that identifies the account that the payment would be initiated from, such as the last 4 digits of the account number, may help consumers evaluate the legitimacy of the notice and take appropriate action such as making a deposit in the affected account as warranted. During the Bureau's consumer testing, participants repeatedly pointed to the account information as a reason to believe that the notice was legitimate. The Bureau expects that most often the account information would reference the account to which the consumer provided authorization. However, the Bureau is aware that some lenders take authorization to debit any account associated with a consumer and would initiate payments from an account different from the one the consumer initially authorized. The Bureau believes that providing some account identification information would help consumers determine the legitimacy of the notice and show whether the account being used is the one that they expected. However, the Bureau is also aware that the consumer's full account number is sensitive information that can be used to initiate fund transfers from a consumer's account. The Bureau believes that providing the last four digits of the account number, as provided in the Model Form, would provide sufficient identification information while protecting the sensitive nature of the account number.

The Bureau seeks comment on whether the truncated format of the account number would sufficiently protect the consumer's account and whether this information should be disclosed in another manner. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether it should prohibit lenders from providing the entire account number in the disclosure.

15(b)(4)(ii)(D) Loan Identification Information

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(ii)(D) would require the payment notice to include sufficient information to permit the consumer to identify the covered loan associated with the transfer. As observed in the Bureau's consumer testing, information identifying the loan number that the payment will be applied to could help consumers evaluate the legitimacy of the notice. This information also may be useful if the consumer contacts the lender about the payment. Since a loan number cannot be used to transfer funds out of a consumer's depository account, the Bureau does not believe that the loan number is likely to raise the same kind of privacy concerns as the consumer's deposit account number. The Bureau seeks comment on the scope and degree of any such concerns and whether a truncated number would be more appropriate.

15(b)(4)(ii)(E) Payment Channel

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(ii)(E) would require that the payment notice include the payment channel of the transfer. Proposed comment 15(b)(4)(ii)(E)-1 clarifies that payment channel refers to the specific network that the payment is initiated through, such as the ACH network. Proposed comment 15(b)(4)(ii)(E)-2 provides examples of payment channel, including ACH transfer, check, remotely created payment order, internal transfer, and debit card payment.

The information required to be provided by proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(ii), as discussed above, would provide the consumer with the information needed to assess whether the transfer the lender intends to initiate is an authorized transfer that accords with the terms of the consumer's loan. If the consumer determines this is not the case, the consumer may wish to instruct her bank to withhold payment. However, the consumer may not know which payment channel the lender will use for a particular attempt, information that determines certain rights afforded to the consumer and that is required to stop payment. For example, it may sometimes be unclear to consumers whether a post-dated check will be processed as in its original form as a signature check or used as a source document for an ACH transfer or remotely created check. As discussed above in part II.D., some lenders take authorizations for multiple payment types and alternate methods throughout the life of the loan.

The Bureau seeks comment on the definition of payment channel. The Bureau invites comment on whether more examples are needed and whether specific language for disclosing each payment channel should be required. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether consumers would benefit from being provided with greater detail in regards to debit card payments, such as whether the payment is being submitted through the PIN debit network or the credit card network.

15(b)(4)(ii)(F) Check Number

For signature or paper checks, remotely created checks, and remotely created payment orders, proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(ii)(F) would require that the payment notice include the check number of the transfer.

Check numbers for RCCs and RCPOs are generated by the lender or its payment processor. Consumers currently cannot know the RCC or RCPO check number until after the payment has been processed. These payments are particularly difficult for a consumer's bank to stop because the bank needs a check number to block the debit on an automated basis. Providing the check number to the consumer would allow the consumer a better opportunity to stop payment on RCCs and RCPOs where, for example, the consumer believes that the payment the lender will be attempting is unauthorized. A consumer also may forget the number of the paper check provided to the lender, so the check number for signature checks could be valuable information for consumers seeking to stop those payments.

15(b)(4)(iii) Annual Percentage Rate

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(iii) would require that the payment notice contain the annual percentage rate of the covered loan, unless the transfer is for an unusual attempt described in proposed § 1041.15(b)(5).

The Bureau believes that providing information about the cost of the loan in the disclosure would remind consumers of the cost of the product over its term and assist consumers in their financial management, for instance in choosing how to allocate available funds among multiple credit obligations or in deciding whether to prepay an obligation. The Bureau recognizes that consumers generally do not have a clear understanding of APR. This was confirmed by the consumer testing of these model forms. APR nonetheless may have some value to consumers as a comparison tool across loan obligations even by consumers who are not deeply familiar with the underlying calculation. Furthermore, because the APR is disclosed at consummation, disclosing a different metric with the payment notices could create consumer confusion.

The Bureau is not proposing to require the disclosure of the APR in a notice alerting consumer to an unusual payment attempt. Given that the purpose of the unusual payment notice is to alert consumers that the payment has changed in a way that they might not expect, the Bureau believes that the APR information may distract consumers from the more important and time-sensitive message.

The Bureau seeks comment on this APR requirement, including whether this content should be required and whether a different measure of cost should be included.

15(b)(4)(iv) Payment Breakdown

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(iv) would require that the payment notice show, in a tabular form, the heading “payment breakdown,” principal, interest, fees (if applicable), other charges (if applicable), and total payment amount. For an interest only or negatively amortizing payment, proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(iv)(G) would also require a statement explaining that the payment will not reduce principal, using the applicable phrase “When you make this payment, your principal balance will stay the same and you will not be closer to paying off your loan” or “When you make this payment, your principal balance will increase and you will not be closer to paying off your loan.”

Proposed comment 15(b)(4)(iv)(B)-1 explains that amount of the payment that is applied to principal must always be included in the payment breakdown table, even if the amount applied is $0. In contrast, proposed comment 15(b)(4)(iv)(D)-1 clarifies that the field for “fees” must only be provided if some of the payment amount will be applied to fees. In situations where more than one fee applies, fees may be disclosed separately or aggregated. The comment further provides that a lender may use its own term to describe the fee, such as “late payment fee.” Similarly, proposed comment 15(b)(4)(iv)(E)-1 clarifies that a field for “other charges” must only be provided if some of the payment amount will be applied to other charges. In situations when more than one other charge applies, other charges may be disclosed separately or aggregated. A lender may use its own term to describe the charge, such as “insurance charge.”

The Bureau is aware that some consumers do not realize how their payments are being applied to their outstanding loan balance. Consumer complaints indicate that there is particular confusion about loans with uneven amortization structures, such as loans that start with interest-only payments and later switch to amortizing payments. Some consumers with such loans have complained that they did not understand that their payments were being applied in this manner. During the Bureau's consumer testing, an example of an interest-only payment was provided to participants. Although participants were not asked directly about the amortization structure of the loan, several noticed the interest-only application and expressed alarm. Providing information about the application of the payment to principal, interest, fees, and other charges, along with a statement indicating if a payment will not reduce principal, could help consumers understand the amortization structure of their loans and determine whether they may want to change their payments on the loan, such as by pre-paying the loan balance. This requirement is similar to the explanation of amount due provision for periodic statements under Regulations Z 12 CFR 1026.41(d)(2). The Bureau believes that showing fees, interest, and other charges separately may help consumers more accurately understand how their payment is being applied to their loan balance. The Bureau believes that this information could more effectively disclose the costs of the loan, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Bureau seeks comment on this payment breakdown table, including the benefits and burdens of providing each individual field. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on both the compliance burden involved in requiring the information to be provided in tabular format and the potential benefits and risks to consumer understanding in using such a format. As discussed in more detail below, the Bureau is proposing in connection with electronic delivery of notices that the table information would not be required for the electronic short notices delivered by text message, mobile application, or email, in part because of concerns that the formatting would not be practicable for all channels.

15(b)(4)(v) Lender Name and Contact Information

Proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(v) would require the payment notice to include the name of the lender, the name under which the transfer will be initiated (if different from the consumer-facing name of the lender), and two different forms of lender contact information that may be used by the consumer to obtain information about the consumer's loan.

Lender name and contact information may support the legitimacy of the notice and may be useful if consumers wish to contact the lender about a payment attempt. Other rules require the disclosure of two methods of contact information, such as the mailing address and telephone number requirement in Regulation E § 1005.7(b)(2) in the context of providing consumer assistance with unauthorized transfers. During the Bureau's consumer testing, participants cited the lender contact information and name as a mark of legitimacy. Lender contact information would also be helpful to consumers if they believe they will have difficulty covering the payment, if they believe that there is an error, or if they want to ask questions relating to managing the costs and risks of their covered loan. Indeed, when asked what they would do if they had questions, testing participants often explained that they would contact the lender using the information provided on the notice. Some participants expressed a preference for contacting the lender by telephone.

The Bureau seeks comment on all aspects of this contact information requirement. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether additional or specific methods of contact information should be required and whether lenders currently operate with or without having all of these methods of contact available to their customers.

15(b)(5) Additional Content Requirements for Unusual Attempts

If the payment transfer is unusual according to the circumstances described in proposed § 1041.15(b)(5), proposed § 1041.15(b)(5) would require the payment notice to contain both the content provided in proposed § 1041.15(b)(4) (other than disclosure of the APR) along with the content required by § 1041.15(b)(5). Specifically, proposed § 1041.15(b)(5)(i) would require the notice to state, if the amount differs from the amount of the regularly scheduled payment, that the transfer will be for a larger or smaller amount than the regularly scheduled payment, as applicable. Proposed § 1041.15(b)(5)(ii) would require the notice to state, if the payment transfer date is not a date on which a regularly scheduled payment is due under the loan agreement, that the transfer will be initiated on a date other than the date of a regularly scheduled payment. For payment attempts using a payment channel different from the channel used for the previous transfer, proposed § 1041.15(b)(5)(iii) would require a statement that the transfer will be initiated through a different payment channel and require the lender to state the channel used for the previous payment attempt. Finally, if the transfer is for the purpose of re-initiating a returned transfer, proposed § 1041.15(b)(5)(iv) would require the notice to state that it is a re-initiation along with a statement of the date and amount of the returned transfer and a statement of the reason for the return.

Proposed comment 15(b)(5)-1 explains if the payment transfer is unusual according to the circumstances described in proposed § 1041.15(b)(5), the payment notice must contain both the content required by proposed § 1041.15(b)(4), except for APR, and the content required by proposed § 1041.15(b)(5). Proposed comment 15(b)(5)(i)-1 explains that the varying amount content requirement applies when a transfer is for the purpose of collecting a payment that is not specified by amount on the payment schedule or when the transfer is for the purpose of collecting a regularly scheduled payment for an amount different from the regularly scheduled payment amount according to the payment schedule. Proposed comment 15(b)(5)(ii)-1 explains that the date other than due date content requirement applies when a transfer is for the purpose of collecting a payment that is not specified by date on the payment schedule or when the transfer is for the purpose of collecting a regularly scheduled payment on a date that differs from regularly scheduled payment date according to the payment schedule.

The Bureau believes that all four of these circumstances—varying amount, date, payment channel and re-initiating a returned transfer—may be important to highlight for the consumer, so that the status of their loan is fully disclosed to them pursuant to section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. If a lender is initiating a payment that differs from the regularly scheduled payment amount authorized by the consumer, the payment is more likely to vary from consumer expectations and pose greater risk of triggering overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees. The Bureau believes that these changes should be highlighted for consumers to understand the risks, attempt to plan for changed payments, and determine whether their authorization is being used appropriately. The Bureau believes that changes in the date and channel of the payment may also be important information for the consumer to prepare for the withdrawal and take steps as necessary. In order to effectively and fully understand their current loan status and alert to consumers to a series of repeat attempts over a short period of time, the Bureau believes that it is also important for the consumer to know if the past payment attempt failed and the lender is attempting to re-initiate a returned transfer.

The Bureau invites comment on whether additional situations should qualify as unusual under proposed § 1041.15(b)(5). The Bureau also seeks comment on whether, in circumstances when the payment amount is different from the regularly scheduled payment amount, the unusual payment notice should state the amount of the regularly scheduled payment that the transfer deviates from.

15(c) Electronic Short Notice

15(c)(1) General

Proposed § 1041.15(c) would provide content requirements for an electronic short notice, which would be a truncated version of the payment notice formatted for electronic delivery through email, text message, or mobile application. This notice must be provided when the lender has obtained the consumer consent for an electronic delivery method and is proceeding to provide notice through such a delivery method. As described above, this electronic short notice would provide a web link to the complete payment notice that would be required by proposed § 1041.15(b)(4) and proposed § 1041.15(b)(5).

To maximize the utility of notices for consumers and minimize the burden on lenders, the Bureau believes that the electronic short notices proposed by § 1041.15(c) should be formatted in consideration of their delivery method. These requirements for tailored content and formatting are consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act to prescribe rules that ensure that the loan features are effectively disclosed to consumers. The Bureau has attempted to tailor the proposed requirements both in light of format limitations for such electronic delivery channels that may be beyond the lenders' control, as well as considerations regarding the ways in which consumers may access email, text messages, and mobile applications that affect privacy considerations, their preferences for particular usage settings, and other issues. For example, text messages and email messages that are read on a mobile device would not have much screen space to show the notice content. Format limitations may make disclosure of information in a tabular format particularly difficult and character limits for text messages could require the full notice content to be broken into multiple chunks for delivery in a way that would substantially decrease the usefulness of the information to consumers while potentially increasing costs for both consumers and lenders.

While these concerns are most extreme with regard to text messaging, the Bureau believes that they may also carry over to email where consumers access their email via mobile device. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to limit the content of notices delivered by email to maximize screen readability without requiring the consumer to repeatedly scroll across or down. In addition, email providers may have access to consumer emails and may scrape the email content for potential advertising or other services; the Bureau believes that limiting the email content would help minimize such access.

For all of these reasons, the Bureau believes that it is appropriate for the electronic short notice to contain less information than the full payment notice given that it links to the full notice. As discussed further below, the Bureau believes that providing access to the full notice via the Web site link would appropriately balance related concerns to ensure that consumers could access the full set of notice information in a more secure, usable, and retainable manner. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposed electronic short notice, including whether additional information should be excluded from the truncated notice. The Bureau seeks comment in particular on whether the readability and privacy concerns for email are outweighed by concerns that requiring consumers to click through to the Web site to access the full notice information will make it less likely that consumers receive the full benefit of the information.

15(c)(2) Content

The electronic short notice would contain an abbreviated version of the payment notice content in proposed § 1041.15(b)(4). The electronic short notice would be an initial notice provided through a method of electronic delivery that the consumer has consented to, such as a text message or email, that would provide a link to a unique URL containing the full payment notice.

15(c)(2)(i) Identifying Statement

Proposed § 1041.15(c)(2)(i) would require the electronic short notice to contain an identifying statement that describes the purpose of the notice and the sender of the notice, as described in proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(i). Proposed comment 15(c)(2)-1 explains that when a lender provides the electronic short notice by email, the identifying statement must be provided in both the subject line and the body of the email.

15(c)(2)(ii) Transfer Terms

The electronic short notice contains less information about the specific elements of the transfer terms than the payment notice content provided in proposed § 1041.15(b)(4). Proposed § 1041.15(c)(2)(ii) would require the electronic short notice to show the date of the transfer, amount of the transfer, and consumer account information. These terms are described for the full payment notice in proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(ii)(A), (B), and (C).

The Bureau believes that the date and the amount of the transfer are the most important pieces of information for the consumer to understand the costs and risks of the forthcoming payment transfer and take appropriate action. Additionally, participants in the Bureau's consumer testing expressed comfort with the legitimacy of the notice due to its inclusion of the consumer's account information. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that this should be required as well in the electronic short notice. Consumers would be able to obtain all of the information contained in the full disclosure by accessing the link contained in the electronic short notice. The Bureau seeks comment on the information included in the electronic short notice.

15(c)(2)(iii) Web Site URL

Proposed § 1041.15(c)(2)(iv) would require the electronic short notice to provide a unique Web site URL that the consumer may use to access to the full payment notice described in proposed § 1041.15(b).

The Bureau believes that consumers should have access to the full notice content, but also understands the format restrictions of mobile devices and text message may limit the utility of providing all of this information through electronic delivery. Through this proposed two-step electronic delivery process, the Bureau is attempting to balance information access with these format considerations. However, the Bureau realizes that this proposed solution may not perfectly accommodate all consumers. The Bureau is aware that some consumers may not have internet capability on their phones and may not be able to open up the Web site when they receive a text message. Some of these consumers may have other means of accessing the internet and thus will be able to use the URL to access the full disclosure on some other device. For those consumers with no means of internet access (and who nonetheless consent to receive electronic disclosures), the Bureau believes that the truncated payment notice information, which takes into account the formatting and character limits of text messages, still provides useful information. If the information in the electronic short notice is inconsistent with the consumer's expectations, the consumer could reach out to the lender for additional information or assistance.

The Bureau understands that the unique Web site URL contains limited privacy and security risks because it would be unlikely that a third party will come across a unique URL. Even if a third party did discover this URL, the notice does not contain sensitive information such as the consumer's name or full account number. The Bureau seeks comment on the burden on lenders of hosting, posting, and taking down notices on a Web page. It also seeks comment on alternative methods of electronic delivery that may be less burdensome.

The Bureau invites comment on the proposed two-step disclosure process for electronic delivery, including whether the Web site link to the full payment notice introduces significant privacy concerns and whether more secure options for electronic delivery are available. The Bureau requests comment on whether, in the interest of consumer privacy, it should prohibit lenders from providing the consumer's name on the full notice when it is provided through a linked URL. The Bureau is aware that there may be additional methods of providing the disclosures required by § 1041.15. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether it should allow lenders to provide the full notice through an email attachment or text message attachment to the short electronic notice, rather than using the linked URL process.

15(c)(3) Additional Content Requirements

If the electronic short notice is being provided under an unusual attempt scenario, as described in proposed § 1041.15(b)(5), the notice would have to state what makes the payment attempt unusual. Proposed § 1041.15(c)(3) would require the electronic short notice to contain information about whether the amount, date, or payment channel has changed. These terms are described for the full payment notice in § 1041.15(b)(5) (i) through (iv).

The Bureau believes that the explanation of how the transfer may differ from the consumers' expectation is important information that needs to be included in the electronic short notice in order for the notice to be effective, pursuant to section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act. As discussed above, when a payment differs from the consumer's expectations, the payment may pose greater risk of triggering overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees.

15(d) Consumer Rights Notice

15(d)(1) General

Proposed § 1041.15(d) would require lenders to provide consumers with a consumer rights notice after a lender has initiated two consecutive or concurrent failed payment transfers and triggered the protections provided by proposed § 1041.14(b). Proposed § 1041.15(d)(2) would provide timing requirements for this consumer rights notice, which would be triggered when the lender receives information that the lender's second consecutive payment attempt has failed. Proposed § 1041.15(d)(3) details content requirements. Proposed § 1041.15(e) would provide content requirements for the electronic short form of the notice, which would be required in situations where the lender is providing this consumer rights notice through a method of electronic delivery.

As described above, proposed § 1041.14 would limit a lender's ability to initiate a payment transfer after two consecutive attempts have failed, allowing the lender to initiate another payment attempt from the consumer's account only if the lender received the consumer's consent under proposed § 1041.14(c) or authorization to initiate an immediate one-time transfer at the consumer's request under proposed § 1041.14. The Bureau believes that consumers should be informed when a lender has triggered proposed § 1041.14 so that consumers are made aware of the failed attempts and of the fact that by operation of law further attempts will cease even though consumers remain obligated to make continuing loan payments. The Bureau is also concerned that some lenders would pressure consumers to provide affirmative consent and could present the reasons behind the re-initiation limit in an incomplete manner. Requiring disclosure of prior failed payments and consumer rights under proposed § 1041.14 would ensure that the costs, benefits, and risks, of the loan and associated payments are effectively disclosed to consumers, consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Due to these policy considerations, the Bureau believes that a lender should be required to provide a standardized consumer rights notice after it has initiated two consecutive failed withdrawals.

The Bureau seeks comment on the proposed content and timing requirements of the consumer rights notice.

15(d)(2) Timing

Proposed § 1041.15(d)(2) would require a lender to send the consumer rights notice no later than three business days after the lender receives information that the second consecutive attempt has failed. Proposed comment 15(d)(2) clarifies that this timing requirement is triggered whenever the lender or its agent, such as a payment processor, receives information that the payment transfer has failed.

When a lender has initiated two consecutive failed payment transfers and triggers the protections provided by proposed § 1041.14(b), a consumer may not be aware that the lender is no longer permitted to initiate payment from the consumer's account. In the meantime, some loans may accrue interest or fees while the balance remains unpaid. For these reasons, the Bureau believes that the consumer rights notice should be provided shortly after the second attempt fails. However, the Bureau is aware that, depending on the payment method, there may be a delay between the lender's initiation of the payment transfer and information that the payment transfer has failed. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing that the lender be required to send the consumer rights notice within three business days after the lender receives information that the payment transfer has failed.

The Bureau seeks comment on this timing requirement, including whether it is appropriate in length and whether it accommodates all payment channels. The Bureau invites comment on whether this timing requirement should be included, or whether the requirement for lenders to provide the consumer rights notice before obtaining a consumer's reauthorization under proposed § 1041.14(b) would provide sufficient consumer protection.

15(d)(3) Content Requirements

Proposed § 1041.15(d)(3) would provide the content requirements for the consumer rights notice. The Bureau believes that a consumer should know that a lender has triggered the provisions in proposed § 1041.14 and is no longer permitted to initiate payment from the consumer's account. The Bureau believes that it may be important to inform consumers that Federal law prohibits the lender from initiating payments. Given that proposed § 1041.14 would prohibit the lender from initiating another payment attempt without a new consumer authorization, the Bureau believes it would also be useful to note that the lender may be contacting the consumer to discuss payment choices. Consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, this content would inform consumers of the payment status on their covered loans and may help prevent consumer confusion or misinformation about why the lender cannot initiate another payment, helping to ensure that this information is effectively, accurately, and fully disclosed to the consumer.

15(d)(3)(i) Identifying Statement

Proposed § 1041.15(d)(3)(i) would require a statement that the lender, identified by name, is no longer permitted to withdraw loan payments from the consumer's account. The Bureau believes that a heading explaining that a lender is no longer permitted to withdraw payments would inform a consumer both that there is an issue with their payment and that the lender has an external requirement to stop any further attempts.

15(d)(3)(ii) Last Two Attempts Were Returned

Proposed § 1041.15(d)(3)(ii) would require a statement that the lender's last two attempts to withdraw payment from the consumer's account were returned due to non-sufficient funds. The Bureau believes that this information should be provided to the consumer early on in the notice because it provides context for why the consumer is receiving the notice.

15(d)(3)(iii) Consumer Account

Proposed § 1041.15(d)(3)(iii) would require the notice to include sufficient information to permit the consumer to identify the account from which the unsuccessful payment attempts were made, but would expressly prohibit the lender from providing the complete account number of the consumer to address privacy concerns. A truncated account number similar to the one used in Model Form A-5 in appendix A to proposed part 1041 would be permissible.

As discussed in the analysis of proposed § 1041.15(b)(4)(ii)(C), the Bureau believes that providing some consumer account information, such as the last four digits of the account, would be helpful for consumers to recognize the legitimacy of a notice. This information may also be useful for checking that the correct account was debited. However, the Bureau is also aware that the consumer's full account number is sensitive information. The Bureau believes that providing the last four digits of the account number, as provided in the Model Forms, would provide sufficient information for the consumer to identify the account while protecting the sensitive nature of the account number.

The Bureau seeks comment on the truncated format of the account number and the benefits and burdens of providing consumers with account identifying information after two payment attempts have failed.

15(d)(3)(iv) Loan Identification Information

Proposed § 1041.15(d)(3)(iv) would require the consumer rights notice to include sufficient information to permit the consumer to identify the covered loan associated with the unsuccessful payment attempts. Information that identifies the loan number may help consumers evaluate the legitimacy of the notice and also may be useful if the consumer contacts the lender about the information in the notice.

15(d)(3)(v) Statement of Federal Law Prohibition

Proposed § 1041.15 (d)(3)(v) would require the consumer rights notice to state, using that phrase, that in order to protect the consumer's account, Federal law prohibits the lender from initiating further payment transfers without the consumer's permission.

The Bureau believes that explaining how this re-initiation limit is a requirement under Federal law will help clarify the reason behind the notice, including how this limit is being imposed as a consumer protection. This information would help ensure that certain risks of the loan and associated payments are consistently and accurately disclosed to consumers, according to the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau seeks comment on this proposed statement of Federal law prohibition, including the breadth and benefit of the statement and its location within the consumer rights notice.

15(d)(3)(vi) Contact About Choices

Proposed § 1041.15(d)(3)(vi) would require a statement that the lender may contact the consumer to discuss payment choices going forward. The Bureau believes that a statement that the lender may contact the consumer about payment choices would prepare the consumer for future contact from the lender.

15(d)(3)(vii) Previous Unsuccessful Payment Attempts

Proposed § 1041.15(d)(3)(vii) would require that the consumer rights notice show, in a tabular form, the heading “previous payment attempts,” the scheduled due date of each previous unsuccessful payment transfer attempt, the date each previous unsuccessful payment transfer attempt was initiated by the lender, the amount of each previous unsuccessful payment transfer attempt, and any lender-charged fees associated with each unsuccessful attempt, if applicable, with an indication that these fees were charged by the lender.

The Bureau believes that showing the information about the prior unsuccessful attempts would provide context for why consumers are receiving the notice and help consumers identify errors. For example, the consumer could compare this table to the payment notices to see whether the prior attempts were initiated for the correct amount. The Bureau seeks comment on the inclusion of this information, including whether more or less information about the prior unsuccessful attempts should be included in the notice.

15(d)(3)(viii) CFPB information

Proposed § 1041.15(d)(3)(v) would require the consumer rights notice to include information about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The notice would be required to provide a statement, using that phrase, that the CFPB created this notice, a statement that the CFPB is a Federal government agency, and the URL to the relevant portion of the CFPB Web site. This statement must be the last piece of information provided in the notice. The Bureau believes that providing information about the CFPB would help show that the notice is meant to inform consumers of their rights and that the lender is not independently choosing to stop initiating payment from the consumer's account. During the Bureau's consumer testing, some participants reviewing forms that places CFPB information adjacent to the loan information believed that the loan was guaranteed by or otherwise provided by the government. Providing this statement at the end of the notice would help prevent consumer confusion between the lender and the CFPB. The Bureau seeks comment about this CFPB content, including whether more or less information about the Bureau would be useful to consumers receiving this consumer rights notice.

15(e) Electronic Short Notice

15(e)(1) General

For lenders to deliver the consumer rights notice required under proposed § 1041.15(d) through an electronic delivery method, proposed § 1041.15(e) would require the lenders to provide an electronic short notice that contains a link to the full consumer rights notice. This notice would contain a truncated version of the content in proposed § 1041.15(d)(3), along with an email subject line, if applicable, and a unique Web site URL that links to the full consumer rights notice.

For many of the same reasons discussed above in connection with § 1041.15(c), the Bureau believes that the electronic short notice should contain limited content to maximize the utility of notices for consumers and minimize the burden on lenders. Consistent with the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act, these proposed requirements would help ensure that consumer rights under proposed § 1041.14 are effectively disclosed to consumers. The Bureau seeks comment on the information in the electronic short notice, including whether information about the consumer's account would be helpful and whether less information should be included. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether lenders should be required to provide the full consumer rights notice, rather the two-step electronic short notice, when email is the method of electronic delivery.

15(e)(2) Content

Proposed § 1041.15(e)(2) would require that the electronic short notice contain an identifying statement, a statement that the last two attempts were returned, consumer account identification information, and a statement of the prohibition under Federal law, using language substantially similar to the language set forth in Model Form A-8 in appendix A to proposed part 1041. These terms are described for the full consumer rights notice in proposed § 1041.15(d)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), and (v). Proposed comment 15(e)(2)-1 clarifies that when a lender provides the electronic short notice by email, the email must contain this identifying statement in both the subject line and the body of the email. In order to provide consumers access to the full consumer rights notice, proposed § 1041.15(e)(2)(v) would also require the electronic short notice to contain the unique URL of a Web site that the consumer may use to access the consumer rights notice.

The Bureau understands that the unique Web site URL contains limited privacy risks because it would be unlikely that a third party will come across a unique URL. Even if a third party did discover this URL, the notice would not contain identifying information such as the consumer's name or full account number. The Bureau seeks comment on the burden on lenders of providing this notice through a Web site and on alternative methods of electronic delivery that may be less burdensome. The Bureau invites comment on the two-step disclosure process for electronic delivery, including whether more secure options for electronic delivery are available. The Bureau specifically seeks comment on whether it should allow lenders to provide the full notice through an email attachment or text message attachment to the short electronic notice, rather than using the linked URL process. The Bureau seeks comment on the content of this electronic short notice, including whether all of this information should be required.

Subpart E—Information Furnishing, Recordkeeping, Anti-Evasion, and Severability

Sections 1041.16 Information Furnishing Requirements and 1041.17 Registered Information Systems

Overview of Sections 1041.16 and 1041.17

As described in proposed §§ 1041.4 and 1041.8, the Bureau believes that it may be an unfair and abusive practice to make a covered loan without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. The Bureau proposes to prevent the abusive and unfair practice by, among other things, including in this proposal requirements for how a lender may reasonably determine that a consumer has the ability to repay a loan.

The Bureau believes that, in order to achieve these consumer protections, a lender must have access to reasonably comprehensive information about a consumer's current and recent borrowing history, including covered loans made to the consumer by other lenders, on a real-time or close to real-time basis. For the most part, however, lenders currently making loans that would be covered under the proposal do not furnish to consumer reporting agencies, either at all or consistently, information concerning loans that would be covered short-term loans or concerning a large portion of loans that would be covered longer-term loans, so that a lender's access to information about a consumer's borrowing history with other lenders is limited. As discussed above in part II, online borrowers appear especially likely to move from lender to lender, making it particularly important for online lenders to have access to information about loans made by other lenders in order to assess properly a consumer's eligibility for a loan under the proposal. Fourteen States require lenders to provide information about certain loans to statewide databases in order to address these information gaps and ensure that lenders have information necessary to comply with various State restrictions concerning lending, but only lenders licensed in those States furnish information to those databases.

To ensure that lenders making loans that would be covered under this proposal have access to timely and reasonably comprehensive information about a consumer's current and recent borrowing history with other lenders, proposed § 1041.16 would require lenders to furnish certain information about most covered loans to each information system registered with the Bureau pursuant to proposed § 1041.17. This requirement would be in addition to any furnishing requirements existing under other Federal or State law. These registered information systems would be consumer reporting agencies within the meaning of section 603(f) of the FCRA, and lenders furnishing information to these systems as required under proposed § 1041.16 would be required to comply with the provisions of the FCRA and its implementing regulations applicable to furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies. The furnishing requirement under proposed § 1041.16 would enable a registered information system to generate a consumer report containing relevant information about a consumer's borrowing history, regardless of which lender had made a covered loan to the consumer previously. Under the proposal, a lender contemplating making most covered loans to a consumer would be required to obtain a consumer report from a registered information system and consider such a report in determining whether the loan could be made to the consumer, in furtherance of the consumer protections of proposed part 1041.

The Bureau considered an alternative approach to ensure that lenders could obtain reasonably comprehensive information about consumers' borrowing history across lenders. Under this alternative approach, lenders would furnish information about covered loans to only one of the entities registered with the Bureau, but would be required to obtain a consumer report from each such entity. The Bureau believes that this approach would likely be more costly for lenders than the proposed approach to require that lenders obtain a report from only one entity, however, as lenders potentially would need to obtain several consumer reports for every application for a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.5, a covered short-term loan made under proposed § 1041.7, or a covered longer-term loan made under proposed § 1041.9. The Bureau recognizes that there are also costs involved in furnishing to multiple entities, but, as discussed below, anticipates that those costs could be reduced substantially with appropriate coordination concerning data standards. The Bureau believes on balance that the furnishing costs would be less expensive overall, and thus is proposing that approach. The Bureau solicits comment on whether the proposed approach reflects the most appropriate way to ensure that lenders can obtain consumers' borrowing history across lenders, or whether there are other approaches the Bureau should consider.

The Bureau also considered an alternative under which lenders would be required to furnish information to the Bureau or a contractor designated by the Bureau and to obtain a report from the Bureau or its contractor. Such an approach might be similar to the approaches of the 14 States previously referenced. However, the Bureau believes that these functions are likely better performed by the private sector and that the proposed approach would permit faster implementation of this rule. Further, there may be legal or practical obstacles to this alternative approach. The Bureau solicits comment on this alternative.

The Bureau solicits comment on whether the burdens associated with obtaining consumer reports from registered information systems and furnishing information about covered loans as would be required under proposed § 1041.16 are justified and whether there are alternative ways to ensure that lenders have access to information about a consumer's borrowing history necessary to achieve the consumer protection goals of proposed part 1041, including not establishing a program for registering information systems and instead relying on lenders' own records, the records of their affiliates, and existing consumer reporting markets.

The proposal would require that the Bureau identify the particular consumer reporting agencies to which lenders must furnish information pursuant to proposed § 1041.16 and from which lenders may obtain consumer reports to satisfy their obligations under proposed §§ 1041.5 through 1041.7, 1041.9, and 1041.10. As described in more detail below, proposed § 1041.17 would provide that the Bureau identify these consumer reporting agencies by registering them with the Bureau as information systems. Lenders that obtain a consumer report from any registered information system thus would be assured of obtaining a reasonably comprehensive account of a consumer's relevant borrowing history across lenders. Requiring registration with the Bureau would provide certainty to lenders concerning both the information systems to which they would be required to furnish information under proposed § 1041.16 and the information systems from which they would be required to obtain a consumer report to satisfy their obligations under proposed §§ 1041.5 through 1041.7, 1041.9, and 1041.10.

Proposed § 1041.17 sets forth proposed processes for registering information systems before and after the furnishing obligations under proposed § 1041.16 take effect and proposed conditions that an entity would be required to satisfy in order to become a registered information system. These proposed conditions, described in detail below, aim to ensure that registered information systems would enable lender compliance with proposed §§ 1041.5 through 1041.7, 1041.9, and 1041.10 so as to achieve the consumer protections of proposed part 1041, and to confirm that the systems themselves maintain compliance programs reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable laws, including those laws designed to protect sensitive consumer information. Based on its outreach, the Bureau believes that there are several consumer reporting agencies currently serving the lending markets covered by this proposed rule that are interested in becoming registered information systems and would be eligible to do so.

Legal Authority for Sections 1041.16 and 1041.17

The Bureau is proposing §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17 pursuant to section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that the Bureau's rules may include requirements for the purpose of preventing unfair or abusive acts or practices. As discussed above, the Bureau believes that it may be an unfair and abusive practice to make a covered loan without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. Accordingly, proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.9 would require lenders to make a reasonable determination that a consumer has the ability to repay the loan. Proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.10 would augment the basic ability-to-repay determinations required by proposed §§ 1041.5 and 1041.9 in circumstances in which the consumer's recent borrowing history or current difficulty repaying an outstanding loan provides important evidence with respect to the consumer's financial capacity to afford a new covered loan. In these circumstances, proposed §§ 1041.6 and 1041.10 would require the lender to factor this evidence into the ability-to-repay determination. Proposed § 1041.7 would provide a limited conditional exemption from the requirement to assess consumers' ability to repay covered short-term loans, based on compliance with certain requirements and conditions that also factor in borrowing history in a number of respects.

The provisions of proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17 are designed to ensure that lenders have access to information to achieve the consumer protections of proposed §§ 1041.5 through 1041.7, 1041.9, and 1041.10. The Bureau believes that to prevent the apparent abusive or unfair practices identified in this proposed rule, it is necessary or appropriate to require lenders to obtain and consider relevant information about a borrower's current and recent borrowing history, including covered loans made by all lenders. The Bureau believes that requiring lenders to furnish relevant information concerning most covered loans pursuant to proposed § 1041.16 would ensure that lenders have access to a reliable and reasonably comprehensive record of a consumer's borrowing history when considering extending the consumer a loan, which would in turn ensure that consumers receive the benefit of the protections imposed by proposed §§ 1041.5 through 1041.7, 1041.9, and 1041.10. The Bureau thus proposes §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17 to prevent the apparent unfair or abusive practices identified and the consumer injury that results from them.

Proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17 are also authorized by section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1024 includes the authority in section 1024(b)(7) to: (A) “prescribe rules to facilitate supervision of persons described in subsection (a)(1) and assessment and detection of risks to consumers”; (B) “require a person described in subsection (a)(1), to generate, provide, or retain records for the purposes of facilitating supervision of such persons and assessing and detecting risks to consumers”; and (C) “prescribe rules regarding a person described in subsection (a)(1), to ensure that such persons are legitimate entities and are able to perform their obligations to consumers.” The provisions in proposed § 1041.17—including the criteria governing when the Bureau may register or provisionally register information systems, suspend or revoke such registration, or deny applications for registration—are designed to facilitate supervision and the assessment and detection of risks to consumers, and to ensure that information systems that choose to register are legitimate entities and able to perform their obligations to consumers. These criteria would also ensure that registered information systems provide information to the Bureau about their activities and compliance systems or procedures. In developing proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17, the Bureau consulted with agencies from States that require lenders to provide information about certain loans to statewide databases and intends to continue to do so where appropriate.

The Bureau also believes proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17 may be “necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof,” pursuant to section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition to being appropriate to carry out the purposes and objectives of this proposed rule, proposed §§ 1041.16 and 1041.17 would help ensure that “consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices,” and “markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.”

Proposed § 1041.17 would permit the Bureau to provisionally register or to register an information system only if the Bureau determines, among other things, that the information system acknowledges that it is, or consents to being, subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority. Under section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau has supervisory and enforcement authority over, among other non-bank persons, “larger participant[s] of a market for other consumer financial products or services,” as the Bureau defines by rule. The Bureau has promulgated a final rule defining larger participants of the market for consumer reporting. The Bureau believes that entities that choose to become provisionally registered and registered information systems under proposed § 1041.17 would be non-depository institutions and would qualify as larger participants in the market for consumer reporting, and their acknowledgment would reflect that status. However, other entities may consent to the Bureau's supervisory authority as well.